M. Caldwell Butler Scrapbooks, Assembled by Staff

CHARGES, From A1

ising government agencies
md he had helped obstruct
justice by participating in the
Watergate cover-up.

“My feeling is that there is
a potential vulnerability on
those two issues, and I’m try-
ing to determine the magni-
tude,” said Railsback. “I want
;o be very specific, to let the
President respond to the
charges.”

Railsback himself was
deeply involved in the revi-
sions. He directed one aide to
prepare his own version of an
impeachment article relating
to the Watergate cover-up.

Congressmen involved in
the negotiations between Dem-
ocrats and the Republicans
who are leaning toward im-
peachment said that it has yet
to be determined who will of-
fer the substitute articles and
in what form.

But one of the Republicans
said he expected that revised
articles now being drawn by
Democratic leaders of the
committe would meet GOP
demands for greater specific-
ity in the impeachment
charges.

In private discussions some
of the Republicans who are
believed prepared to vote for
impeachment questioned the
language of four proposed ar-
ticles prepared by the Judici-
ary Committee staff under the
direction of special counsel
John Doar.

“The tone of the first article
(relating to the Watergate
cover-up) makes it appear that
the President was directing
the burglary,” said one GOP
congressman. “We want the
articles to specifically show
Mr. Nixon’s participation in
the cover-up.”

Another Republican said the
articles were “not artful in
their legal draftsmanship.”

Democrats started early and
worked late in their efforts to
satisfy these objections of
tone and language They came
up with three revised articles
of impeachment.

One article alleges that Mr.
Nixon abused his power as
President by directing agen-
cies to perform improper acts.
It also charges that he failed
to carry out his constitutional
duty to see that the laws be
faithfully enforced. The sec-
ond count charges him with
obstructing justice by partici-
pating in the Watergate cover-
up. A third says that he
showed contempt for Congress
by refusing to comply with
committee subpoenas.

The four Republicans, who
have been in steady consulta-
tion with each other for sev-
eral weeks, are believed to fa-
vor only the first two articles.

Railsback said yesterday

that he would not support the
“contempt of Congress”

charge as a separate article of
impeachment. Cohen sug-
gested laist Saturday that the
committee should draw

“adverse inferences” from Mr.
Nixon’s refusal to turn over
requested tapes and docu-
ments to the committee rather
than impeaching him on this
specific charge.

But the Democrats decided
to present the contempt
charge anyway, largely in the
hope of attracting the support
of Rep. Robert McClory of
Illinois, the committee’s sec-
ond-ranking Republican. Mc-
Clory, who is considered un-
likely to vote for the Water-
gate cover-up charge has said
repeatedly that he is “dis-
turbed” over Mr. Nixon’s de-
fiance of the committee sub-
poenas.

One Democratic member
who helped in revising the im-
peachment articles pointed
out that at least two other
counts will be offered to the
committe. One is the charge
that Mr. Nixon engaged in
“willful tax fraud,” as alleged
by the Doar staff, and the
other is the Cambodian bom-
bing, which probably will be
jut before the committee by
Cep. Robert Drinan (D-Mass.).

Neither count is expcted to
win committe approval.

While Republicans who are
evidently prepared to vote for
impeachment were lending
their support to substitute ar-
ticles, opponents of impeach-
ment were seeking to vote on
the issues as presented last
week by Doar.

Rep. Charles Wiggins (R-
Calif.), who agreed that some
of the Doar articles were
“inartfully and unprofession-
ally drafted,” said he did not
consider it his responsibility
to improve them.

“If an article is offered by a
member which is inartfully
drafted, I don’t regard it as
my personal function to make
it more acceptable to the
membership,” Wiggins said. “I
personally am not going to
take the lead in trying to cor-
rect somebody else’s error.”

t Judiciaryr p ane l £) oeSH >£ Mirror

Makeup Is
Atypical

By David S. Broder

Washington Post Staff Writer

The 38 men and women
on the Houtfe Judiciary
Committee who now sit in
judgment on the President
of the United States are,
like their colleagues in Con-
gress, highly individual bun-
dles of conscience, political
cunning, anxiety and N ambi-
tion.

The committee is not,
however, a perfect cross-sec-
tion of the House or the
country — and the peculiari-
ties of this group are impor-
tant in the first stage of the
impeachment process.

Women, blacks and urban
liberals are over-represented
among the 21 Democrats,
compared* to their propor-
tions among the 248 Demo-
crats' in the House. South-
erners, conservatives and ru-
ral constituencies are under-
represented.

On the Republican side,
just the opposite is the case.
The 17 minority members
are weighted to the South,
Midwest and West— and to
the conservative side of the
spectrum.

A member’s general philo-
sophical or political position
is not necessarily a guide to
his vote on impeachment— as
Rep. Lawrence J. Hogan (R-
Md.) demonstrated Tuesday.
Hogan, one of the four for-
mer FBI agents on the
panel, an ardent crusader
against abortion and for
conservative causes, and a

I

The Full House

COMMITTEE, From A1

staunch Nixon supporter
throughout his career, came
out hard for impeachment.

But the Judiciary Com-
mittee’s basic polarization
between liberal Democrats
and conservative Republi-
cans is the reason so much
emphasis has focused on the
handful of conservative
Democrats and moderate Re-
publicans on the committee.

It is such men as Walter
Flowers (D-Ala.), James R.
Mann (D-S.C.) and Ray
Thornton (D-Ark.) who will
decide how solid the Demo-
crats are for impeachment.

And it is such men as
Robert McClory (R-Ill.),
Henry P. Smith III (R-N.Y.),
Tom Railsback (R-Ill.), Ham-
ilton Fish Jr., (R-N.Y.), M.
Caldwell Butler (R-Va.) and
William S. Cohen (R-Maine)
who will determine whether
Republicans rally with any
strength around the Presi-
dent.

There are two other nota-
ble characteristics of the Ju-
diciary meinbers that could
affect their votes.

Few of them are vulnera-
ble to short-term political
retaliation in 1974. And
most of them are young
enough and junior enough
to be thinking of long-term
careers.

Only two members are re-
tiring voluntarily from poll-
tics this year. Smith, the 62
year-old New York Republi-
can, has indicated he would
welcome an appointment to
the United Nations. Rep. Ha-
rold D. Donohue (D-Mass.), a
bachelor at 73, is looking
1 forward to retirement in
Worcester.

Hogan is running for gov-
ernor of Maryland and hop-
ing to face better than Rep.
Jerome R. Waldie (D-Calif.)
also a committee member
and one of the early im
peachment advocates, whc
was knocked out of the Cali
fornia governorship race ir
last month’s primary.

Rep. Wayne Owens (D-
Utah) is a candidate for the
Senate, and his political
problem is almost a mirror
ipiage of Hogan’s.

Hogan has to figure out
fyow to win in a state with a
8-to-lr Democratic registra-
tion edge. Owens, who is
also expd8te<f"to support im-
peachment, has to sell his
stand in a state where Mr.
Nixon has always enjoyed
strong support. /

Tne other committee
members are all running for
re-election and face only the
immediate challenge of ex-
plaining their position to
constituents who have sup-
ported them in the past — a
relatively easier task.

On most scorecards, fewer
than a half-dozen of the
members of Judiciary look
to be dangerously vulnera-
ble to defeat this year— no
matter which way they vote.

Reps. Robert F. Drinan
(DJVIass.), the Jesuit priest
who was the first impeach-
ment advocate in Congress,
and Rep. Edward Mezvinsky
(D-Iowa), a freshman critic
of the President, both had
very close races in 1972, but
neither is likely to be dam-
aged by an impeachment
vote.

On the Republican side,
the four most vulnerable
members are the two New
Jersey congressmen, Charles^
W. Sandman Jr., and Joseph
J. Maraziti, both weakened
by redistricting, Rep. Harold
V. Froehlich (R-Wis.) and
Rep. Wiley Mayne (R-Iowa),
both of whom barely won in
1972 with help from Mr. Nix-
on’s coattails.

Of those four, only Froeh-
lich is considered a possible
impeachment vote. Another
statistically marginal Repub-
lican, Rep. Cohen of Maine,
is regarded as a likely im-
peachment vote, but Cohen
has solidified himself in his
district enough in the past
two years to face no immi-
nent danger.

Even without the immedi-
ate pressure of possible elec-
tion defeat, however, Ju dici-
ary Committee members in-
volved in a political-judicial
process like impeachment
are certain to reflect the po-
litical character of their dis-
tricts.

Thus, the predictably
heavy support among com-
mittee Democrats is a direct
byproduct of the fact that
their ranks include three of
the 16 blacks in the House
(Reps. John Conyers Jr., of
Detroit, Charles B. Rangel
of Harlem and Barbara Jor-
dan of Houston), plus an-
other half-dozen, including
chairman Peter W. Rodino
Jr., (D-N.J.), whose big-city
districts include substantial
minority populations.

It is also a byproduct of
the fact that the Judiciary
Committee through the
years had been a favorite
place for service by lawyers
interested in liberal causes,
like Rep. Don Edwards (D-
Calif.), a former national
chairman of Americans for
Democratic Action, and Rep.
Robert W. Kastenmeier (D-
Wis.), who represents Madi-
son and the University of
Wisconsin.

On the other hand, most
of the Republicans on the
committee— -from the rank-
ing minority member, Rep.
Edward Hutchinson of Mich-
igan, to Rep. Delbert L.
Latta of Ohio, at the bottom
of the table— come from the
kind of rural and small town
districts that represent #-
bedrock conservative Repub-
licanism.

Rep. Charles E. Wiggins
(R-Calif.), who has emerged

as the President’s chief de-
fender, is, appropriately, the
congressman from the same
Whittier, Calif., district that
sent Richard Nixon tb the
House a quarter-century
ago.

The polarization of the
committee is indicated, in
another way, by the fact
that virtually all its Demo-
crats were financed in 1972
with the help of organized
labor, while most of the Re-
publicans drew campaign as-
sistance from business and
medical political funds.

In his 1972 sweep, Mr.
Nixon carried 29 of the 38
districts represented by Ju-
diciary Committee mem-
bers. But these members —
and particularly the Re-
publicans — show few signs
of looking back to that elec-
tion for their guidance.

The striking cha racteristic
of the comnAe is the
briefness of mmiy of its
members' tenure. Only
seven of the 17 Republicans
and nine of the 21 Demo-
crats were in Congress be-
fore Mr. Nixon entered the
White House.

Most of them, plainly,
hope to be around long after
he is gone.

Railsback, the Illinois
moderate who has emerged
as the key figure among the
uncommitted GOP mem-
bers, reflected that when he
said yesterday, “My feeling
is that the future of the
(Republican) Party is not in
the White House. President
Nixon may have some influ-
ence on the 1976 convention,

THE WASHINGTON POST Thursday , July 25, 1974

By James K. W. Atherton — The Washington Post

The House Judiciary Committee opens its doors and its debate Wednesday night on the question of reporting out a resolution of impeachment.

but after that . . . there have
to be new people.”

“Some people think that if
a Larry Hogan or a Bill Co-
hen votes for impeachment,

it s the death knell for them
in the party,” Railsback
said. “I don’t believe that.
The threat of retaliation
won’t work.”

Railsback said that in his
own western Illinois district,
“my people are against im-
peachment by a rather large
margin.” But he noted that

“almost all the pressure to
vote against impeachment is
coming from the senior reg-
ular party officials ... I find
an entirely different feeling

on the part of the younger
people.”

“We owe the old-timers ,z.
lot,” Railsback said, “but
they are not the future.”

Support for Nixon
Seen Wilting Away

By Richard L. Lyons
and William Chapman

Washington Post Staff Writers

Support for President Nixon ap-
peared to be wilting away yesterday as
several uncommitted members of the
House Judiciary Committee indicated
they may vote for impeachment.

The most striking shift was by Rep.
M. Caldwell Butler (R-Va.), who an-
nounced his intention to vote to im-
peach the President with the
statement: “I cannot condone what I
have heard, I cannot excuse it, and I
cannot stand still for it.”

Rep. Ray Thornton (D-Ark.) was the
second undecided member to announce
for impeachment.

The former Arkansas attorney gen-
eral said last night there was “no mis-
take” from the evidence that the
President “was aware and generally
attempted to conceal the evidence” of
Watergate. Thornton said that while
some of the offenses attributed to the
President have happened before, “I
know of no time when it was system-
atized or carried on in such an organ-
ized way.” He said the President
should be impeached for abuse of
power and obstruction of justice.

Chairman Peter W. Rodino (D-N.J.)
closed 10 hours of general debate last
night with the expected statement that
he will vote for impeachment. He said
he had applied the tests he felt the
committee must apply and “I find the
President must be found wanting.”
Rep. Edward Hutchinson (R-Mich.),
senior committee Republican, an-
nounced as expected he will oppose
impeachment.

The committee is to begin voting
t lis morning on two articles of im-
peachment for recommendation to the
House.

It has been assumed for months that
the committee would approve an im-

peachment resolution, but the margin
appeared to be growing wider yester-
day. Several Republicans and South-
ern Democrats spelled out the evi-
dence that most troubled them and in-
dicated — without saying specifically —
that they would wind up in the pro-im-
peachment camp.

An informal head count last night
showed 20 solid votes for impeachment
and nine against. The nine other mem-
bers have not announced their position
positively, but most are expected to fa-
vor impeachment on at least one
ground.

It appeared that on at least one arti-
cle the vote could be as high as 27 to
11 to recommend impeachment.

The middle-ground members seemed
to be most concerned about evidence
showing an alleged abuse of power by
the President, specifically the misuse
of agencies such as the CIA, FBI and
Internal Revenue Service for political
purposes.

These charges are contained in the
second article of impeachment pro-
posed by the Democratic majority and
designed to appeal to as many unde-
cided members as possible. The first
article, which is to be considered by
the committee first today, accuses the
President of obstruction of justice in
the Watergate cover-up.

The articles were still being refined
by Democratic drafters last night, but
sponsors said any changes would be
minor. A likely addition is a 'charge
that evidence on the break-in of Daniel
Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office was con-
cealed by the President.

When it comes to the actual voting,
the wording of the article will become
crucial. A member who wants to vote
for impeachment on a single ground
may find the entire article containing
the charge he agrees with too broad.

See IMPEACH, A12, Col. 1 <££&&

*rzr

122nd Year. No. 207

Copyright © 1974
The Evening Star Newspaper Co.

WASHINGTON, D. C., FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1974 —80 PAGES

REP. ROBERT McCLORY REP. JAMES MANN REP. THOMAS RAILSBACK

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT TODAY’S HEARING

By Martha Angle
and Walter Taylor

Star-News Staff Writers

The House Judiciary Commit-
tee, brushing aside one last plea
for delay, today moved inexora-
bly towards the first impeach-
ment vote against an American
president in more than a century.

The first proposed article be-
fore the committee focused on
charges that President Nixon
enga ged in a pattern of conduct

Continued from Page A-1 to the committee, but said

As today’s session got tbe reque ® t

underway, Rep. Robert should be made anyway be-
McClory, R-Ill., sought to fore the committee votes on
persuade the committee to the basis of admittedly

amounting to obstruction of jus-
tice in the Watergate scandal in
violation of his constitutional
oath of office.

The start of today’s climactic
proceeding was delayed while a
small group of committee mem-
bers and staff aides hammered
out a revised, tightened version
of the charges.

The substitute, offered by
Rep. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., was
shorter and more carefully
worded than the article initially

proposed two days ago by Rep.
Harold Donohue, D-Mass. It was
essentially unchanged in sub-
stance.

A VOTE on Article I could
come as early as tonight, ac-
cording to committee sources.
The panel will then turn to a sec-
ond proposed article encompass-
ing allegations that President
Nixon abused the powers of his
office in a manner wa rr an t in g
his impeachment.

See IMPEACHMENT, A-6

give President Nixon 10
days to turn over to the
panel 64 tapes which the Su-
preme Court has ordered
him to make available to
the Watergate special
prosecutor.

McClory tied his motion
for delay to receiving assur-
ances from the President by
noon tomorrow that he
would provide the tapes to
the committee. Nonethe-
less, the motion drew only
lukewarm support and was

defeated by a bipartisan 27-
11 vote.

“Our first request to the
President for tapes was
made on Feb. 25, a full six
months ago,” noted Rep.
John F. Seiberling, D-Ohio.

4 ‘The President could
have walked in here any
time — and in fact could
still do so — to give us these
tapes. I see no reason why
we should give further
opportunity to delay to a
president who has taken
every chance to drag out
this process,” Seiberling
said.

McCLORY conceded he
has “a strong feeling” that
Nixon has no intention of
providing additional tapes

incomplete evidence.

Only one Democrat —
Rep. James Mann of South
Carolina — voted for the
delay. The other “aye”
votes came from Reps. Ed-
ward Hutchinson, R-Mich.;
Henry Smith III, R-N.Y.;
David Dennis, R-Ind.; Har-
old Froelich, R-Wis. ; Carlos
Moorhead, R-Calif. ; Law-
rence J. Hogan, R-Md.; M.
Caldwell Butler, R-Va. ; Jo-
seph J. Maraziti, R-N.J.;
Delbert L. Latta, R-Ohio;
and McClory.

Some of Nixon’s support-
ers voted against the delay.
They were Republicans
Charles Sandman of New
Jersey, Charles Wiggins of
California, Wiley Mayne of
Iowa and Trent Lott of Mis-
sissippi.

With the McClory motion
disposed of, the committee
members turned their
attention to debate and
possible modification of the
obstruction of justice im-
peachment article laid
down by Sarbanes.

Participants in the back-
room drafting session in-
cluded Chairman Peter
Rodino, D-N.J., Sarbanes;
Rep. Don Edwards, D-
Calif.; Rep. James Mann,

D-S.C.; Rep. Jack Brooks,
D-Texas; and at least one
Republican staff lawyer,
according to one of those
present.

As the committee took up
the impeachment articles,
all 21 Democrats and 7
Republicans on the panel
appeared committed to or
leaning toward a vote
recommending congression-
al indictment of the Presi-
dent for constitutional
“high crimes and misde-
meanors.”

Rodino, who shepherded
the panel through a seven-
month investigation of
Nixon’s fitness to remain in
office, officially checked
out of the camp of the non-
committed last night, tell-
ing a national television
audience that he would urge
adoption of impeachment
articles.

“I HAVE searched within
my heart and my con-
science and searched out
the facts,” he said. “I find
that the President must be
found wanting.”

Much more damaging
than Rodino’s declaration
to Nixon’s chances of win-
ning exoneration, not only
in the committee but also in
the full House, were strong
indications that all three
Southern Democrats and a
significant number of
Republicans on the panel
are prepared to support im-
peachment.

Nixon’s most serious loss,
in terms of votes it could
influence in the House, was
Butler, a conservative Vir-
ginia Republican.

“THERE ARE frighten-
ing implications for the fu-
~ ture of our country if we do
not impeach the Presi-
dent,” he told millions of
television viewers

As general debate on im-
peachment drew to a close,
Butler stated his intention
to support both of the gener-
al charges against the
President that are under
consideration by the com-
mittee — obstruction of jus-
tice and abuse of power.

“If we fail to impeach, we
have condoned and left
unpunished a course of con-
duct totally inconsistent
with the reasonable expec-
tations of the American peo-
ple ... a presidential
course of conduct designed
to interfere with and ob-
struct the process which he
is sworn to uphold . . . and
an abuse of power totally
without justification.”

“Watergate is our
shame,” he said to his
Republican colleagues. “It
is our responsibility to do
what we can to clear it up.”

Meanwhile, Democrats on
the panel, ticking off al-
leged presidential mis-
deeds, aligned themselves
solidly behind an impeach-
ment push.

Said Rep. John Conyers
Jr., D-Mich.: “The Presi-
dent took the power of his
office and under the guise
of protecting and executing
the laws that he swore to
uphold, he abused them and
in so doing he has
jeopardized the strength
and integrity of the Consti-
tution and the laws of the
land and the protections
that they ought to afford all
of the people.”

Charles McDowell

Instant Fame

111

■IN

fy

WASHINGTON — Congressman M. Caldwell Butler, the
Republican freshman from Roanoke, has his picture in Time,
Newsweek and U.S. News this week. It is difficult to bring off a
triple like that without doing something sensational on the
national scene, like at least getting indicted. Butler did it mere-
ly by remaining “undecided” about the impeachment of Presi-
dent Nixon.

He is one of the five, six or maybe it’s eight Republicans on the
House Judiciary Committee who obviously are giving serious
thought to voting for impeachment. The count varies with dif-
ferent observers, and Lawrence Hogan, a Nixon man from
Maryland, threw some of the counts off the other day by coming
out publicly for impeachment before there was a consensus that
he had become undecided.

Anyhow, any Republican vote for impeachment in the com-
mittee would have much more impact on the whole House than a
-» ■ n Democratic vote, assumptions

about partisan bias being what
they are. It is conceivable that a
vote for impeachment by a
Southern conservative
Republican like Caldwell Butler
would have the most impact of
! all.

I •' ' ! The Virginian attracts atten-
tion, too, by the way he handles
the pressures of his position. He
continues to be a droll,
somewhat courtly but comfor-
tably plain freshman from
Roanoke. He has impressed his
colleagues as a keen and con-
scientious lawyer but one who
manages not to dazzle himself.
If he has any pretensions they
fall into the category of good-
McDowell old-boyisms, which tend not to
grate.

All the publicity astonishes him and he is interested in it, but
he had no trouble telling a television network that he is too busy
to be a famous American on the news tonight.

The Washington Post and the Star-News have discovered
Butler fairly recently and written a lot about him. The New
York Times tracks him almost as closely as the Roanoke
Times. Butler was not greatly unsettled to learn the other after-
noon, when he returned to his office after a long committee
session, that he had had 20 calls from the press and the BBC was
on hold from London.

BUTLER HAS BEEN RECEIVING up to 200 letters a day
recently. More than 150 of them typically have come from out-
side Virginia. After a wave of pro-Nixon mail, most of it now is
calling for impeachment. The policy in the office has been to
concentrate on the Virginia mail, giving specific replies to
specific questions — except to the question of how he is going to
vote. This week Butler proclaimed a sort of deliberative period
and began simply acknowledging letters and telling writers he
would try to explain his vote to them after he casts it.

Some of the letters from Nixon supporters have been very
strong, even abusive. How could a good Republican and decent
American even consider voting with those liberal devils against
our great President, and does he realize such a betrayal would
forfeit the writer’s support forever? That sort of thing.

“I’ve been just telling them that they’ve got to do what
they’ve got to do, and I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do,” Butler
said.

He had been up early that morning meeting with several
others of the “undecided” Republicans before a committee
session. Four or five of them have been meeting privately right
along and have brought in a committee staff lawyer to help them

Continued on Page 10 , Col. 1

Caldwell Butler’s
Instant Fame

Continued From First Pape

assess and theorize about the kind of articles of impeachment
that would come close to suiting their views of the available
evidence.

Butler said Chief Counsel John Doar’s summary presentation
of evidence to the full committee had been “impressive.” He
said James St. Clair’s arguments for the President had been
helpful, too, but the two presentations in combinations tended to
highlight the importance of the White House tape recordings
that the President had refused to turn over to the committee.

“ Yes , things have sort of been pulled into focus for us, ” Butler
said, “and I can’t get away from the idea that if the President
had anything to improve his position, he would have surren-
dered it.”

BUTLER HAD ATTENDED the morning meeting of the
committee and listened to some general talk about the merits of
various drafts of impeachment articles that were circulating
among the members. He noticed that a Xerox copy of a column
by James J. Kilpatrick also was going the rounds.

Kilpatrick had written: “The President’s last-ditch par-
tisans are only deceiving themselves by persisting in the notion
that Watergate is no more than a conspiracy among Democrats
and newsmen. This evidence is no mirage; this evidence is as
real as any avalanche. It overwhelms.”

Butler said that was an interesting column and made no com-
ment on its content. Butler talks candidly about the case up to a
point, that point being just this side of any flat statement that
would take him out of the ranks of the technicaly undecided. And
he insists that more than a technical distinction is involved; he
can imagine developments that would change the trend of his
thinking now.

As he described that trend to Time magazine without quite be-
ing flat about it: “I truly hate the prospect of impeaching the
President of the United States. But I ’d also hate for the record to
condone all that abuse of power that has come to light.”

After his early meeting with other “undecideds,” a con-
ference with still other committee colleagues, the morning
meeting of the committee itself and a trip to the House floor,
Butler was looking forward to a moment of peace in his office
before a lunch meeting and another session of the committee.
He was wondering what he would do with the 15 minutes on
national television that he and every other committee member
would have at the opening of the formal public debate on im-
peachment. He was pretty sure he would just ask a few questio
s, but he was having trouble thinking about questions because
the phones were ringing and people were bringing him
messages and the state president of the Future Farmers of
America was waiting to see him and a reporter was sitting there
looking at him.

He found a minute to look at a few crucial matters the staff
had laid on his desk. The staff is young and bright and has a sense
of humor . The first item for a command decision was a sugges-
tion by the Virginia Peanut Growers Association that Butler
might require an increase in his weekly allocation of free
promotional peanuts for visiting constituents.

T don’t think I’m up to a decision of that magnitude right
now,” Butler said, and went off for a quick lunch.

Fifi Clay of Covington,. Ky., and Sal Scafiei of Baltimore who
interrupted the committee’s impeachment inquiry today with
shouting, are escorted from the hearing.

Rep. Ray Thornton, D-
Ark., said: “As I have re-
viewed the many pages of
evidence which have been
presented to us, and lis-
tened to the witnesses who
have appeared before us, I
could not help but observe
that many of the things that
we saw . . . had happened
before. . . . But as I have
reviewed the evidence and
the testimony, it has be-
come evident to me that
while these offenses may
.have existed before, I know
of no other time when they
have been systematized, or
carried on in such an
organized and directed
way.”

Rep. Jerome R. Waldie,

D-Calif., said: “. . . You
cannot look at the evidence
in this case and the totality
of what confronts us in this
case without understanding
that unless we fulfill our ob-
ligations as these fallible
human beings in this genius
of a governmental struc-

K ire; our obligation and our
uty is to impeach this
president that this country
might get about doing its
business the way it should
do and pursuant to stand-
ards that have been set for
this country since its begin-
ning.’ *

Rep. Charles B. Rangel,
D-N.Y., said: “We don’t
hear anything about truth,
morality, the protection of
our Constitution in any of
the presidential conversa-
tions, whether they be in
the tape or whether they be
edited transcripts. But, we
hope that our nation’s White
House will never again have
to hear all of the sordid
crimes that have been com-
mitted by the President and
other people, and I would
uphold my oath of office
again and call for the im-
peachment of a man who
has not.’’

THE HISTORIC impeach-
ment debate also was
marked by eloquence in sup-
port of the President.

“I know it would be easy
to vote for impeachment,”
said Carlos J. Moorhead, R-
Calif., a soft-spoken Nixon
defender. “It is hard to be
against something that so
many people are for, when
the press is united for it,
when the magazines are,
the media of all kinds, and a
majority of the American
people apparently go in that
direction.

“But, I could not vote iur
impeachment and give up
what is so important to me,
which is my own conscience
of what I believe is right
and wrong. And I believe
that this thing is wrong.”

The committee’s senior
Republican, Rep. Edward
Hutchinson of Michigan,
said the evidence has not
convinced him that the
President should be im-
peached.

“Let me just say that not
only do I not believe that
any crimes by the President j
have been proved beyond a j
reasonable doubt, but I do
not think the proof even ap-
proaches the lesser stand-
ards of proof which some of
my colleagues, I believe,
have injudiciously suggest-
ed we apply.”

THE IMPEACHMENT of
a president, he said, cannot
be warranted by “stacking
inferences, one upon anoth-
er, or by making demands
for information from the
President which we know
he will not,, and which he
believes in principle he can-
not supply and then by
trying to draw inferences
from a refusal which we
fully anticipated before the
demands were even made.”
Rep. William S. Cohen of

Maine, one of the commit-
tee Republicans seen as
likely to vote for impeach-
ment, praised some of the
achievements of the Presi-
dent in the realm of foreign
affairs.

“I HAVE BEEN faced
with the terrible responsi-
bility of assessing the con-
duct of a President that I
voted for, believed to be the

best man to lead thig coun- "
try,” he said, a President
“who has made significant
and lasting contributions to-
wards securing peace in
this country, throughout the
world, but a President who
in the process by act or
acquiesence allowed the
rule Of law and the Constitu-
tion to slip under the boots
of indifference and arro- .
gance and abuse.’’

^ 12 Friday, July 26. 1974 THE WASHINGTON POST

*Nixon Support in Committee

Appears to Be Wilting

IMPEACH, From AI

For instance. Rep. Robert McClory (R-
111.) has indicated that he might vote to
impeach the President for contempt of
Congress, but this is part of the
broader article on abuse of power.

The articles will be open to amend-
ment and may be changed to achieve
the maximum vote.

The Watergate article to be taken up
today contains specific allegations of
wrong-doing by the President, includ-
ing approving payment of hush money,'
making false statements to investiga-
tors, encouraging lying by aides and
concealing evidence.

Meanwhile, the Republican effort to
obtain a delay in the proceedings
while more evidence is sought had
faded away. On Wednesday, several
Republican members had said the com-
mittee should postpone any votes until
it tried to obtain the taped presidential
conversations which the Supreme
Court had ordered turned over to
Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Ja-
worski.

But yesterday, the Republicans aban-
doned that effort. They said that if
President Nixon had indicated some
willingness to make the tapes ava^able
to the committee as well as to Jawor-
ski a delay would have been worth
seeking. Without any assurance of that
from the President, however, they said
therewas no point in trying to forcp a
committee delay.

Butler told the committee and the
viewing nationwide television audience
that failure to impeach the President
would carry “frightening implications
for the future of our country” because
it would set an acceptable standard of
conduct for the future.

Butler reminded fellow Republicans
that their party had run for office for
years against Democratic corruption.

“But Watergate is our shame,” he
said. “Those things happened while we
had a Republican in the White House,
and every single person convicted to
date has one way or another owed alle-
giance to the Republican Party. We
cannot indulge ourselves the luxury of
excusing the misconduct of our own

« le. The American people may rea-
bly ask the Republican Party: ‘Do
really mean what you say?’ ”

Failure to impeach, said Butler,
would be to condone “an abuse of
power totally without justification”
and would be saying to the American
people: “These deeds are inconsequen-
tial and unimportant.”

The President's participation in the
Watergate cover-up “is clearly a policy
of obstruction of justice,” Butler said,
and his “manipulation of the FBI, CIA,
IRS and indeed the existence of the
White House plumbers are frightening
in their implications for the future of
America.”

The committee received another
bomb threat resulting in a 30-minute
recess, but no bomb was found.

The case for Mr. Nixon was laid
out by Rep. Charles Wiggins (R-Calif.),
who insisted that the evidence amass-
ed by the committee staff did not meet >
the test of being “clear and convin-
cing.”

He disputed the charge, contained in
both articles of impeachment, that Mr.
Nixon misused the Central Intelli-
gence Agency to block the FBI’s inves-
tigation of the Watergate burglary.

Mr. Nixon’s only direct role, Wiggins
said, was to give instructions that the
FBI investigation not expose unrelated
CIA covert activities and that there
should be coordination between the
two agencies

The President acted in that manner,
Wiggins added, because he knew that
one conspirator was working for a CIA
front, and that two others had been ac-
tive CIA agents. Mr. Nixon also knew
at the time that the FBI had suggested
CIA involvement as one possible the-
ory of the case, he said.

“. . . I think it is not unreasonable to
characterize the President’s order,
given the facts known to him at the
time he issued the order, to be wholly
responsible and wholly reasonable, and
inconsistent with the notion that it was
motivated by a corrupt desire to ob-
struct justice,” Wiggins argued.

Wiggins similarly sought to mini-
mize Mr. Nixon’s role in a charge that
he abused his powers by using the In-
ternal Revenue Service to investigate
his political enemies. He acknowledged
that White House aides sought to have
enemies’ tax returns audited, but as-
serted that the President personally
played no role in that.

He said that the only incident of
presidential involvement is contained
in a tape of a Sept. 15, 1972, conversa-
tion. White House chief of staff H. R.
(Bob) Haldeman described to the Presh
dent how an aide was working
“ruthlessly” against political enemies
and mentioned the IRS, Wiggins said.

“And do you know what the only
thing the President said was? The only
thing he said was, ‘Yeah,’” Wiggins re-
called. “That’s the only evidence in the
charge that the President corrupted
the IRS.”

Rep. David W. Dennis (R-Ind.) made
a point-by-point rebuttal of the pro-
posed articles of impeachments, argu-
ing that they are not supported by the
evidence.

Dennis said that the 17 wiretaps con-
stituting the charge of illegal surveil-
liance were “presumptively legal” at
the time they were ordered and are
“probably legal in large part” despite a
recent Supreme Court decision limit-
ing government wiretaps.

Dennis said there was nothing wrong
in establishing the “plumbers” unit,
which was engaged, among other work,
in the break-in at the office of Daniel
Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. Proof is lack-
ing, he contended, to show that Mr.
Nixon intended the plumbers to en-
gage in unlawful covert activities. One
of the charges is that the break-in was
to obtain information Mr. Nixon could
use to defame Ellsberg. Dennis said
there is no proof of that.

Dennis acknowledged that in the ob-
struction of justice charge the “most
dangerous single incident” was the
March 21, 1973, conversation in which
Mr. Nixon stated “in dramatic fash-
ion, that in order to buy time, a pay-
ment to Hunt was apparently neces-
sary.”

But Dennis observed that John W.
Dean III testified that nothing had
been resolved about paying hush
money by that conversation. He said
other evidence shows that the payment
to Hunt would have been made even if
that Dean-Nixon conversation had
never occurred.

Dennis warned that any prosecution
of the President will divide the coun-
try. “It will tear asunder the Republi-
can Party for many years to come —
and this is bad for the country, which
depends for its political health on a
strong two-party system,” Dennis said.

Another staunch supporter of the
President, Rep. Wiley Mayne (R-Iowa),
bitterly criticized the committee staff,
led by John Doar. He accused Doar of
“throwing in everything but the
kitchen sink” to justify spending $1.5
million on preparing evidence, most of
which he charged is “irrelevant and re-
petitious.

s.Wi i »

Mayne also charged that Mr. Nixon
had been subjected to investigations
that never were aimed at previous
Presidents. He said Lyndon B. Johnson
Ihad left the White House with a
"‘multi-million-dollar empire” amassed
through television properties subject
to federal licensing. “He left the White
House a wealthy man, but has he been
investigated like Mr. Nixon has been?”
Mayne asked.

Hep. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R-N.Y.), re-
garded as one of the Republicans who
might turn against the President, did
not tip his hand yesterday, but indi-
cated that he was considering voting
for impeachment on both articles.

“At the outset of this debate,” Fish
said, “I find myself deeply troubled
over evidence of presidential complic-
ity in thwarting justice and in the al-
leged abuse of power in that great of-
fice, particularly the use of the enor-
mous power of the United Stated gov-
ernment to invade and impinge upon
the private rights of individuals.”

Another nominally undecided
member, Rep. Walter Flowers (D-
Ala.), also indicated personal alarm
at evidence suggesting improper use
of the IRS.

“. . . There has been evidence be-
fore us that the White House ob-
tained politically damaging informa-
tion from the IRS about a member
of the family of the governor of my
state and published it to attempt to
affect the governor’s re-election,”
Flowers said. It was a reference to
the leaking of information on an IRS
investigation of Gov. George C. Wal-
lace’s brother, Gerald.

“The power of the IRS reaches
into every life, and it is a chilling
thought that it might be a political
instrument to get the enemies of the
government,” he added.

Flowers said there is also evidence
that the FBI was used to spy on the
administration’s enemies and that
the CIA supplied equipment for the
break-in at the office of Ellsberg’s
psychiatrist.

Flowers also was critical of Presi-
dent Nixon’s conversations with As-
sistant Attorney General Henry E
Petersen about grand jury evidence
im plicating Haldeman and an other
White House aide, John D. Ehrlich-
man.

Peterson had urged Mr. Nixon to
help in the investigation, and the
President had assured him that the
information on the grand jury would
be kept confidential.

“Yet not only did, the President re-
lay this information to Haldeman
and Ehrlichman, who were the ones
under investigation, but helped them
use it to structure a plan to defend
themselves,” Flowers said.

^ Two Democratic liberals who long
piave advocated impeachment — Reps.
Jerome Waldie (Calif.) and John Con-
yers (Mich.)— -charged that the case
against Mr. Nixon was overwhelming.

Conyers argued that the two articles
before the committee had been too
narrowly drawn and should at least
embrace the President’s decision to
bomb Cambodia in 1969.

Conyers said he/also hoped to make
^ a separate article of impeachment out
of Mr. Nixon’s refusal to comply with
Judiciary Committee subpoenas calling

0 for the production of taped conversa-
tions and documents.

Waldie said that “not one iota of evi-

1 dence” had been submitted to clear
the President of the offenses charged
against him. “There’s a mountain of

6 evidence showing that he acted to ob-
«* struct justice,” Waldie charged, but no
counter-evidence of an exculpatory na-
O ture had been offered.

Kl Rep. William Cohen (R-Maine) ap-
peared from his remarks ready to vote
to impeach, but said he still had to
make a final decision. Like others in
P the middle group still agonizing over
their decision, Cohen is most con-
0 cerned about misuse of federal agen-
$ cies, especially the Internal Revenue
^ Service

American people pay their taxes, he
sac *’ * n ^ ie belief that their dollars are
I * ' spent for legitimate purposes. ‘The
most serious threat to our very society
and liberties,” he said, “occurs when
those in positions -of power undertake
j\| to turn neutral instruments of govern-
ment into agents of vengeance and re-
X tribution against private citizens . . .

We simply cannot condone such intol-
* erable conduct.”

0 To those who call evidence against

^ the President only circumstantial, Co-
hen said, this can be as reliable as di-
rect evidence, and added:
“Conspiracies are not born in the sun-
light . . . they are hatched in dark re-
cesses, amid whispers and code words.
The footprints of guilt must often be
traced with the searchlight of proba-
bility.”

Rep. Lawrence F. Hogan (R-Md.),

who had previously announced he

would vote for impeachment, sharp-
ened his criticism of Mr. Nixon for
condoning the Watergate cover-up.

Hogan recited Oval Office conversa-
tions where the President was told and
discussed demands for Watergate hush
money, and asked:

“Did he rise up in- righteous indigna-
tion and throw them put of his office
and call the Department of Justice and
tell them a conspiracy was going on to
buy silence? My President didn’t do
that. He worked and worked to try to
cover it up so it wouldn’t come to
light. As much as it pains me to say it,
he should be impeached and removed
H from office.”

j To demands from Rep. Charles

Sandman (R-N.J.) for direct proof of

T the President’s guilt, Hogan replied:

Y “He wants the arrow to the heart.

What we have is a virus that creeps up
£ on you slowly until it becomes over-
£ whelming.” He described Sandman’s
approach as “focusing on one little tile
in a mosaic and saying I find nothing
wrong . . . We must look at the whole.”

s

u

9

P

0

n

T

l

W

c

o

A

P

P

£

R

s

r

0

6

e

w

1

u

T

I

N

6

Rep George E. Danielson (D-Calif.)
said the committee has “ample direct
evidence” to prove the President
guilty of impeachment offenses.

“It is a pattern of conduct featured
by the concealment, containment and
hiding of evidence, by perjury subor-

nation or perjury and acquiesence in
perjury by those holding responsible
authority. The cover-up activities
clearly constitute violations of several
criminal laws, including obstruction of
justice .

Danielson read excerpts from a Sept.
15, 1972, conversation between the
President and top aides “just before
the presidential election,” at which
they discussed ways to sidetrack a
Watergate investigation proposed by
House Banking Committee Chairman
Wright Patman (D-Tex.). Danielson
said this “plot to cover-up the Water-
gate burglary” showed the President
was “running the show” and was in it-
self ample proof for impeachment.

Rep. James Mann (D-S.C.), a South-
erner deeply torn by the issue of im-
peachment, said members must vote
their consciences and place allegiance
to the constitutional system above
their political careers.

“How much I would like to have all
the evidence,” said Mann, referring to
the President’s defiance of committee
subpoenas for 147 taped conversations.
“The President has the evidence. I’m
starving for it, but I’ll do the best I
can with what I’ve got.”

Mann did not debate the allegations,
but asked the American people to be-
lieve that members, when they cast
their vote, are voting in compliance
with their oath to uphold the Constitu-
tion. “We are not determining the
President’s guilt or innocence,” said
Mann. “We are determining whether
the American people are entitled to a
trial in an open court.”

Rep. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), who
clearly announced his support for im-
peachment without saying the words,
said our constitutional system is
“based on truth and integrity” and
“cannot work if those standards are
not followed. Otherwise, it is impossi-
ble for the citizenry to make informed
judgments with respect to their re-
sponsibility for self-government.”

“There are many proofs of the Presi-
dent’s direct involvement” in the
Watergate cover-up, Sarbanes said.

“Ask yourselves if a President who
surrounds himself at the highest level,
by men who abuse constitutional proc-
esses should be called to account.
What concept of government is it that
permits the man at the top to walk
away and say he knows nothing, saw
nothing, heard nothing?”

to former IRS Commissioners Thrower
and Walters for standing up to White
House pressure to misuse their agency
former Attorney General Elliot L.
Richardson and his deputy, William
Ruckelshaus for refusing to fire for-
mer Watergate Special Prosecutor Ar- (
chibald Cox, who had done no wrongj
and to Cox and his successor, Leon Ja-
worski “for pressing ahead to prove
that no American stands above the
law ”

Another Republican who indicated
he may vote for impeachment was
Rep. Harold V. Froehlich (Wis.), who
said that he was “deeply pained” by
evidence suggesting that Mr. Nixon

nlKeim

VjOG&H . ?<»+
f Supper* for kii*oo
,rk Conrvmtiee Seen

^‘‘•hoq rt^jaq''

had knowledge of and participated bur-
the cover-up of the Watergate bur-
glary.

He observed that Mr. Nixon had
commended Dean for containing the
investigation of Watergate and had or-
dered Dean to make an “incomplete”'
investigation of the crime and the par-
ticipation of White House aides. ^
Froehlich also said he was troubled
by evidence that Mr. Nixon passed on
confidential grand jury information
from Petersen to two top aides under
investigation, Haldeman and Ehrlich-
man. He said, however, that he would
withhold his final decision until the
debates are completed.

Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), one of Mr.
Nixon's strongest supporters, said
there was insufficient evidence con-
necting any of the crimes directly with
the President.

“The line must be drawn directly to
the President,” Lott said. “This has not
been done.”

But Rep. John Seiberling (D-Ohio)
called the evidence against the Presi-
dent overwhelming and said the tapes
revealed Mr. Nixon to be obsessed
with perpetuating himself in power.

Rep. Carles Moorehead (R-Calif.) de-
plored the crimes for which presiden-
tial aides have been convicted, but said
that impeachment required leaping
over a moat to connect the President
to those crimes. “I cannot jump over
that moat,” Moorehead said. “I could
not vote for impeachment.”

Rep. Robert F. Drinan (D-Mass.), an
impeachment advocate from the begin-
ning, accused the committee of ignor-
Mng what he regarded as the most im-
peachable offense — concealment of the
bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and 1970.
“The President orchestrated a conspir-
acy to keep the lid on Cambodia until .
at least after the election in 1972,” he
charged

The draft articles of impeachment
do not contain a charge involving the
Cambodia bombing.

Many of the committed Democrats
concentrated on the Watergate cover-
up charge and particularly the alleged
payment of hush money to the burg-
lary defendants. Rep. Charles D. Ran-
gel (D-N.Y.) discussed the President's
asserted approval of payments to
Hunt, one of the conspirators, and
Rangel asked: “Why is my President
talking about paying $120,000 to a com- 1
mon burglar?” If thereason was “com
pass* on,” Rangel said, “there are
thousands of poor people in our jails
throughout this country who have a
better case than Howard Hunt.”

Rep. Joseph J. Maraziti (R-N.J.) sup-
ported the President all the way, de-
claring, “We should settle for no less
than hard evidence that the President
has committed an impeachable , of-
fense.”

BUT HE SAID, when asked the
impact, “I heard from several
Southerners that it was very,
very good. I think it had quite an
impact.”

Preyer and Rep. Walter B.
Jones, another North Carolina
Democrat, said House members
from their area are “watching
the committee debate with rapt
attention.”

Southern Democrats, Jones
said, have one often-unnoticed
problem to contend with: A rela-
tive lack of press coverage “back
home” for Watergate and im-
peachment news.

“Our constituents,” he said,
“have not been privy to the same
volume of information we receive
here in Washington.”

PREYER SAID the nationally
televised Judiciary Committee
debate — which is demonstrating
the scope of the impeachment
case and the bipartisan support it
commands — may well influence
Southern voters.

Butler’s speech clearly had an
impact on his Virginia col-
leagues, who comprise one of the
most conservative state delega-
tions in the House.

“Obviously it will have some
influence on me and others in the
delegation,” said Rep. William C.
Wampler, R-Va., whose 9th Dis-
trict — the southwestern end of
the state — has the strongest and
longest Republican tradition of
any in the state.

“CaldWell is a man of great
integrity and ability. He is held
in very high regard as a person
and because he is a member of
the committee.”

WAMPLER SAID he personal-
ly remains undecided on the im-
peachment issue, but believes
that if five to eight committee
Republicans desert the President
“it will have a lot of bearing” on
the outcome in the full House.

Rep. G. William Whitehurst, R-
Va., of Norfolk, conceded he
“wasn’t astounded” by Butler’s
“very strong speech,” but said it
would nonetheless “give us all
cause for a great deal of
thought.” Because of Butler’s
reputation for integrity, he said,
anything he said would carry
weight with us.”

Rep. Stanford E. Parris, R-
Va., a freshmen from Fairfax
Station in the nearby 8th District,
said Butler’s decision — and that
of other Republicans — “has got
to have some impact.”

“I think the great majority of
the Virginia delegation wants not
to impeach the President, but if
the evidence is clear and con-
vincing, they will,” he said.

ONE VIRGINIA source said
the delegation may well split five
for impeachment, five against i
when the House vote is taken 1
Parris said he suspects this is a
fair assessment.”

Parris said he is “right smack
dab in the middle” as of now
having “decided this issue 15
times in both directions.”

The Northern Virginia Republi-
can was elected in 1972 with 44
percent of the vote, beating out
three opponents. He sees an im-
peachment vote — either pro or
c °n ~ os a “no win” proposition
politically.

“People have been writing and
calling for months, threatening
never to vote for me if I do this or
that, he said. “Very frankly, I
don’t care. You can’t decide it
that way on this question, and I
won t.

“I’m doing the very best I tr
know how, whether my constitu-
ents like it or not,” Parris said.

Nixon

By Martha Angle

Star-News Staff Writer

The “Southern strategy” which
President Nixon pursued in his
1968 campaign — and revived for
the current impeachment strug-
gle — appears to have foundered
in the House Judiciary Commit-
tee.

As the committee prepared to
vote on articles of impeachment,
all but one of its Southern mem-
bers sadly served notice they j
cannot condone the conduct of '
the President who captured the
support of so many of their con-
stituents in two successive elec-
tions.

Only Rep. Trent Lott, R-Miss.,
remained firmly in the Nixon
camp as the committee con-
cluded two days of “general de-
bate, in reality personal posi- I
tion statements, on the pros and 1
cons of impeachment.

Of the remaining Southerners,
Reps. Barbara Jordan and Jack
Brooks, both Texas Democrats,
surprised no one by speaking for
impeachment.

But the often anguished
summations of evidence and per-
sonal declarations of conscience
from Reps. Walter Flowers, D-
Ala., James R. Mann, D-S.C
Ray Thornton, D-Ark., and M
Caldwell Butler, R-Va. — all con-
sidered previously uncommitted
— had immediate reverberations
| in the full House.

“The results have been clearly j
adverse for the President,” said
Rep. John H. Buchanan, R-Ala.
“It would seem to me that unless
there is an outpouring of expres-
sion for the President from the
American people, or some other
rather strong development on his
behalf, he is now likely to be im-
H peached.”

FOR MONTHS now, Nixon has
been courting Southern Demo-
crats whose conservative voting
habits coincide in most cases
with his own political philosophy
and policies.

Dixie Democrats have been
summoned to_ the White House for
ceremonial bill signings, shower-
ed with social invitations and —
perhaps most significantly —
asked aboard the presidential
yacht Sequoia for evening
cruises with Nixon.

The President needs the South-
erners, and all but a score or so
of the House Republicans, to es-
cape impeachment. But defec-
tions from both groups within the
Judiciary Committee appear to
bode ill for his chances on the
House floor.

It was a conservative Republi-
can from Virginia — a state more
accustomed to breeding Presi-
dents than breaking them — who
delivered one of the stiffest blows
to Nixon during yesterday’s de-
bate.

Until yesterday, Rep. M. Cald-
well Butler — a freshman from
Roanoke whose 6th District gave
Richard M. Nixon his biggest
Virginia margin in 1972 — had
kept his own counsel on impeach-
ment.

THERE HAD BEEN hints that
Butler might vote to impeach,
but the fervor of his declaration
caught committee members and
others in the House by surprise.
And because he is both a South-
erner and a Republican — with a
1973 presidential support “score”
of 75 percent, one of the highest
m the House — his decision
carried special weight.

Butler told his hushed col-
leagues that Republicans have a
special, responsibility in judging
the President’s conduct.

d~ I.?- saiu, we

Kepublicans have campaigned
against corruption and miscon-
duct in the administration of the
government of the United States
by the other party ... But Water-
gate is our shame!”

,, Republicans, Butler warned,
cannot indulge ourselves in the
> luxury of patronizing and excus-
ing the misconduct of our own
people. These things happened in
our house and it is our responsi-
bility to do what we can to clear
it up.”

IN A RUSH of sharply worded
charges, Butler shed the “unde-
cided’’ cloak he had worn
throughout the long investigation
and explained why he is
presently inclined” to support
articles of impeachment based on
obstruction of justice and abuse
of power by the President.

Ticking off examples of “the
misuse of power — the very es-
sence of tyranny,” Butler said
there are frightening implica-
tions for the future of our country
U we do not impeach the Presi-
dent of the United States.”

‘.‘Jfwe fail to impeach,” he
said, we will have condoned and
left unpunished a presidential
course of conduct designed to
interfere with and obstruct the
very process which he is sworn to
uphold; and we will have con-
doned and left unpunished an
abuse of power totally without
justification.”

Watergate and related scan-
da^s, Butler said, constitute “a
sad chapter in American history.
But I cannot condone what I have
heard. I cannot excuse it. And I
cannot and will not stand for it.”
R, e P- Richardson Preyer, D-
N.C., did not hear Butler’s
speech himself, for like many
House members not on the Ju-
diciary Committee he was
immersed in other legislative
business. f .

Charles M cDowell

Caldwell Butler
On Impeachment

WASHINGTON — It is a Nixon Republican’s office. A color
portrait of the President hangs on the wall of the anteroom with
three cheerful photographs of the President and the con-
gressman together.

The congressman, M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia, has spent
the day in the Judiciary Committee. He cast a significant vote
there. He and seven others of the 17 Republicans on the commit-
tee joined all but one of the 21 Democrats in voting to warn the
President by formal letter that his refusal to comply with sub-
poenas for Watergate-related tapes “might constitute a ground
for impeachment.”

Now, late in the afternoon, Butler passes through the an-
teroom into his inner office, removes his jacket and sits down
heavily behind this desk. The impeachment inquiry is taking
more and more of his time and energy.

“It’s like getting caught in a whirlpool,” he tells a visitor. “It
just takes over your life. You
can’t listen to it all day and then
turn it off. It’s overwhelming. It
colors everything you do.”

The committee has been
meeting three times a week
from 9 a.m. until 4:30 or 5 or 6
p.m. The members spend hours
with big earphones clamped on
their heads, listening to White
House tapes acquired from the
courts and the special
prosecutor. They also spend
hours listening to the presenta-
tion of evidence by the commit-
tee counsel, with special atten-
tion to questions whose answers
might be on the tapes the Presi-
dent refuses to deliver.

The members are painfully
careful and often contentious
about procedure. They argue on
and on over the interpretation of a memorandum » the phrasing of
a subpoena. All 38 members of the Judiciary Committee are
lawyers.

After the long, tense days in the committee room, there are
briefs and other documents to bring back to the office and take;
home at night. Butler smiles and says, “It makes you feel like-
you’re earning your pay.”

IS THE FRESHMAN CONGRESSMAN from Roanoke con-
stantly aware of history hovering at his shoulder in all this? Of
course he is, and he is constantly trying not to be pompous about
it.

“I don’t feel they’re saving a little niche over there at the
Capitol for Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson and Caldwell
Butler,” he says.

“But it can be a little frightening to realize that about 10 of us,
maybe as few as six, are the swing votes that could decide how
this thing goes.”

When Butler came to the House of Representatives from
Virginia’s 6th District in 1972, he was frankly disappointed to be
assigned to the Judiciary Committee. He wanted to be on Com-
merce, which deals with a wide range of subjects. Judiciary
sounded legalistic and dreary.

And then came the impeachment inquiry. In the beginning, the
conservative Butler was alarmed by the large number of liberal
Democrats on the committee. He thought he was in a hotbed of

McDowell

Continued on Page 7 , Col 6

Charles McDowell

Caldwell Butler
On Impeachment

Continued From First Page

“crazies.” He was skeptical of the intellectual depth and objec-
tivity of the chairman, Peter Rodino of New Jersey.

Now Butler’s assessment is that both sides have a handful of*
predictable partisans but the central majority is reasonable and
open-minded. He praises Rodino for fairness and wise restraint
in conducting the inquiry.

‘ ‘ Mutual respect is growing, ’ * he says. ‘ ‘ People are listening to
each other. I believe the destiny of the President is in good hands.

BUTLER SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE TAPES he has heard
are much more informative than the transcripts of the same con-
versations.

“There are degrees of emphasis, domination and control of a
conversation that you just have to hear,” he says. “It is perfectly
apparent to me, for instance, that the President is in control of
the conversations and directs their course. And he does not
necessarily come off worse in the tapes themselves than in the
transcripts. Overall, in fact, I’d say he sounds more like people
would expect a president to sound.”

When asked what impressions of H.R. Haldeman, John D.
Ehrlichman and John W. Dean III he received from the tapes,
Butler says, “The President is the only one of that group who has
a personality.”

Then he says rather grimly that he does not want to talk about
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Dean any more.

Butler’s basic outlook on the impeachment inquiry has chang-
ed since the committee issued its first subpoena for White House
tapes. The edited transcripts did not satisfy Butler or most of his
colleagues. The President’s continuing refusal to cooperate
melted Butler’s patience and his hope for a clear-cut end to the

inquiry. .

“I thought we would get the facts,” he says, “and then our job
would be the determination of a legal conclusion — do the known
facts constitute impeachable misconduct?

“But now the White House has frustrated us in this, and
knowingly so. Now we have to consider whether we’re going to
infer from noncompliance that the information is adverse to the
President . . .and when we can’t find out the facts, we are entitled
to assume they are adverse.

“You can’t impeach a President on inference, but inference
coupled with known facts, well, we can pass it on to the Senate for
trial under all the safeguards of a trial.”

If President Nixon and his lawyer, James D. St. Clair, are em-
barked on some grand strategy of delay , Butler suspects it might
backfire.

“ I’ m not at all sure their failure to respond doesn’ t actually ac-
celerate the impeachment process,” he says.

“Withholding the tapes seems so ill-advised to me that. . . well,

I hasten to say that Mr. St. Clair has made a lot more money prac-
ticing law than I have and I guess these tactics could be right.

“But my own impression is simply that the President is pre-
judicing his own case by not cooperating with the committee,
that’s all.”

Butler: No Joy in

By Stephen Green

Washington Post-Staff Writer

The agony of Hep. M. Cald-
well Butler (R-Va.) ended
shortly after 3 p.m. yesterday
when he infbrmed his fellow
members of the House Judici-
ary Committee that his
“present inclination” is to vote
for the impeachment of Presi-
dent Nixon.

“There will be no joy in it
for me,” Butler told the Com-
mittee. Talking later to a re-
porter in a Rayburn Building
corridor he said: “I’m relieved
it’s over. I’ve probably ago-
nized over this more, than any
other decision I’ve ever
made.”

Butler, the only Virginia
member of the Judiciary Com-
mittee, is a Republican from
Roanoke who voted in support
of the President’s position 75
per cent of the time last year.
His decision could have an im-
pact on the votes of moderate

and conservative Republicans
when, as is now expected, the
impeachment question is
reported by the Committee to
the full House.

In fact, late yesterday after-
noon one Republican House
staffer said: “They’re (Republi-
can Congressmen) all talking
about Butler’s decision in the
cloakrooms. They' respect
him.”

Butler , later said he still
hopes the President will come
forward with evidence that
will persuade him not to vote
to impeach Mr. <: Nixon for
“obstruction of justice and
abuse of power.”

“But I don’t expect anything
will come out to change my
mind,” he said.

“Looking back at it;” Butler
said, “I’ve been horrified from
the first day when the staff
started pulling/ the evidence

There was not one particu-
lar witness, nor one single
document or tape recording
that .convinced him that a vote
for impeachment would be the
course he would decide ,to fol-
low, Butler said.

. . “It w£s the total cumulative
effect,” he explained.

Butler said he finally made
up his mind when he went
home last week — partly to
make a campaign appearance
with Vice President -Gerald
Ford — and discussed the im-
peachment procedings with
his wife. “She agreed with my
decision,” he said.

“I turned it over in my mind
and started realizing what was
gQing on over there at the
White House with all those
guys. It’s an American trag-

edy^ A classic American trag-
edy.”

During the 15 minutes, al-

together for us. That’s when 1 1 loted him in yesterday’s Judi-

felt it.”

ciary Committee
debate, Butler related how dif-
ficult it will be for him to cast
his vote for impeachment.

He described “how distaste-
ful this proceeding is for me.”
He stated he still has pride in
the “significant accomplish-
ments of the administration of
Richard Nixon.

He noted “there are those
who believe I would not be
•here today if it were not for
our joint effort in 1972. And I
am deeply grateful for the
many kindesses and courtes-
ies” the President “has shown
me over the years. I am not
unmindful of the loyalty I owe
him.” -A \

Yet, Butler said, Watergate
is the “shame” of the Republi-
can Party. “We cannot indulge
ourselves the luxury of pa-
tronizing or excusing the mis-
conduct -of our own people.
These things have happened
in our house and it is our re-

sponsibility to do what we can
to clear it up.”

v “If we fail to impeach,” he
said, “we have condoned and
left unpunished a course of
conduct totally inconsistent
with £he reasonable expecta-
tions of the American people.”

Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead of
California, another Republi-
can member of the Committee
walked up to Butler in the
hallway after his speech. “I
guess politically you made the
right decision/’ Moorhead
said. ^

Butler shook his head. “You
don’t know my district,” he re-
plied.

A young man hurried by
and called out: “That was a
wonderful speech Mr. Butler.
It was great, just great.”

Butler thought for a n.o
ment and said softly: “Yeah,
but he doesn’t vote in my dis-
trict.”

'K&an’iC

Portrayal Is

Undercut

By David S. Broder

Washington Post Staff Writer

The opening round of de-
bate in the House Judiciary
Committee undercut the
White House effort to depict
the impeachment effort as a
partisan plot.

But the lack of focus on
specific and critical points
of controversy left both the
President’s critics and de-
fenders unhappy about the

News Analysis

public’s impression of the
quality of evidence on which
the President is being
judged.

The weeks of orchestrated
effort by Mr. Nixon’s
spokesmen to depict the
committee as a \ “kangaroo
court” or a liberal Demo-
cratic lynch mob were all
but demolished in a few
hours yesterday, when three
of the committee’s junior
Republicans — Lawrence J.
Hogan of Maryland, M.
Caldwell Butler of Virginia
and William S. Cohen of
Maine — delivered the most
eloquent and impassioned
indictments of the President
heard from anyone.

Their testimony alter-
nated with and comple-
mented the low-keyed open-
ing statements of three
Southern and border state
Democrats— Walter Flowers
of Alabama, James R. Mann
of South Carolina and Paul
S. Sarbanes of Maryland —

See EVIDENCE, A12, Col. 1

^ R

Partisan Plot Image is Undercut

EVIDENCE, From A1

whose words and gestures
reflected the agony of their
own losing struggles to
square Mr. Nixon’s behavior
with the standards set by
the Constitution.

The sequence of speeches
altered -the tone of the hear-
ing from the partisan debate
it had been, and negated
what has been Mr. Nixon’s
main hope for a public rela-
tions victory over his antag-
onists.

Last night, the junior
Republican on the* com-
mittee, Rep. Delbert L.
Latta of Ohio, restated the
White House contention that
the impeachment majority
was made up of “labor,
COPE and ADA” liberals,
bent on destroying the
needed “strength in the of-
fice of the presidency.”

But the four remaining
Democratic speakers — rep-
resenting, as if by design,
the four regions of the coun-
try and such diverse con-
stituencies as Brooklyn, Salt
Lake City, Iowa City and
Sheridan, Ark., — provided a
more effective rebuttal to
that claim than any stage
manager could have devised.

But the hard challenge
from the President’s main
defenders on the committee
•—Reps. Charles E. Wiggins
(R-Calif.) and David W. Den-
nis (R-Ind.)— to debate the
detailed evidence of the key
points in the bill of im-
peachment went largely un-
answered by both Republi-
cans and Democrats.

That was because many of
the members decided to use
their opening 15-minute
statements to speak to the
country, to their own con-
stituents or, in some in-
stances, to the President,
rather than to each other.

The committee’s internal
dialogue — on points of evi-
dence and law — is likely to
take over today, as it de-
bates specific provisions of
the bill of impeachment it
now seems certain to send
to the House floor.

That debate may be sim-
plified by the apparently
broad agreement on the na-
ture of an impeachable of-
fense and the degree of
'oroof required to sustain it
With few exr*'

'jnbers ap

fV

first suggested by impeach-
ment council John Doar —
must be “clear and convinc-
ing,” a standard tougher
than that of a finding of
“probable cause” but not so
rigid as a jury verdict that
an individual is guilty
“beyond a reasonable
doubt.”

The debate also indicated
that considerable fencing is
in store on the question of
direct vs. circumstantial evi-
dence. Opponents of im-
peachment argued that the
majority staff has piled
“inference on inference” to
build a case reaching to the
President— an argument
that Cohen rejected with
the observation that if you
awake to find snow on the
ground, it is not unreasona-
ble to infer that it snowed
while you were asleep.

But that argument will be
settled, not by phrases or
analogies, but by the hard
debate on specific points of
evidence— the very thing
most committee members,
particularly those favoring
impeachment, avoided in
their opening statements.

Those statements were
mainly political— appealing
to everything from the pub-
lic conscience to the preju-
dices of particular consti-
tuencies and, sometimes, to
the attention of the man in
the dock, Richard Nixon.

Those preparing to vote
for impeachment told the
nation— and the history
books — how “distasteful”
they found that burden.

Those Republicans prepar-
ing to vote against impeach-
ment expressed their dis-
taste for the moral stand-
ards of the White House and
were free in condemning
former presidential assist-
ants who have yet to be con-
victed of wrongdoing in a
court of law.

There were also messages
aimed at disproving, in ad-
vance, the claim that parti-
sanship should or would af-
fect the verdict. Rep. Robert
McClory (R-Ill.) took time to
explain why it was not true
that “no good Republican
can vote to impeach a Re-
publican President” and
Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.)
asserted that if Democrats
were really politically moti-
vated, they would do any-
thing to keep Mr. N* —
o&t ^ N vand pre^e * -

• '■•ord &

Democratic Action, was so
anxious to establish his non-
partisanship that he even
confessed he had once voted
for Mr. Nixon.

Most of the half-dozen Re-
publicans leaning toward
impeachment made a point
of saying they had helped
get the President a fair
hearing by insisting on
changes in committee proce-
dures from the majority
Democrats.

Southerners like Flowers
and Mann, whose districts
went 2-to-l for Nixon in
1972, were especially eager
to explain themselves to the
White House and the folks
at home before casting any
impeachment -votes. Alaba-
mian Flowers emphasized
his shock at learning the
White House had leaked tax
information against Gov.
George C. Wallace of Ala-
bama. Mann told the White
House and his South Caro-
lina constituents he was
“starving” for evidence that
would clear the President,
and still hoping to receive
it.

But for all the disclaim-
ers, the pattern of speeches
was predominantly partisan
up until Thursday after-
noon. After Chairman Peter
Rodino’s statesmanlike
opener, eight straight Demo-
cratic speakers on Wednes-
day night and Thursday vied
in their descriptions of the
sweeping character of Mr.
Nixon’s alleged crimes and
the seriousness of the dan-
ger of keeping him in office.

The loudest voices among
the answering Republicans
were those complaining of a
“highly partisan prosecu-
tion” and a prejudiced
press, and claiming that any
faults of Mr. Nixon were
minor compared to the
schemes of Lyndon Johnson
that had escaped investiga-
tion by a Democratic Con-
gress.

That pattern broke dra-
matically when Hogan and
Butler, both staunch con-
servatives, and Cohen, a
progressive Republican, laid
down their critique of the
President.

Hogan invoked echoes of
the Declaration of Inde-
pendence by citing “the long
train of abuses” he attrib-
uted to the President But-
ler, who acknowledged he.
would not have been in Con-'
gress without Mr. Nixons^

And Cohen undertook, in
part, to do what no one else
had done— meet Wiggins’
and Dennis’ challenge to de-
bate the evidence.

Wiggins had focused on
the testimony concerning
Mr. Nixon’s alleged misuse
of the Internal Revenue
Service to harass his politi-
cal enemies— a charge that
is central in importance to
the half-dozen or so possible
pro-impeachment Republi-
cans.

As Wiggins told it, all Mr.
Nixon said in a conversation
about the IRS on Sept. 15,
1972, was “Yeah,” and
“Great,” and, “You know,
we have never used these
agencies in the past, but
things are going to change
now ...”

Those few comments, he
said, are far from “clear and
convincing evidence justify-
ing an impeachment . . . .”
Cohen, in rebuttal, added
two more quotes from the
President, which he said put
a more serious light on the,
situation: “I want the most
—I want the most compre-
hensive notes on all of those
that have tried to do us in,
because they didn’t have to
do it. . . . Things are going
to change, and they are go-
ing to get it, right?”

But the full context of the
presidential conversation, as
reported in the committee’s
transcript, was not read to
the television audience.

It shows the President
asking for the results of the
“Post Office check” on con-
tributions to his opponent,
Sen. George McGoverh (D-
S.D.).

It shows him saying, in a
reference to the lawyer then
handling the Democrats’ ]
civil suit against the Presi-
dent’s re-election committee
over the Watergate break-in,
“I wouldn’t want to be in
Edward Bennett Williams’
position after this election
• I think we are going
to fix the son-of-a-bitch. Be-
lieve me. We are going
to . . .”

And again, a moment
later, the President
remarks: “We’ve been just
God damn fools. For us to
come into this election cam-
paign and not do anything

usee

lOWc"

I ~ — — MARY McGRORY

p 'is Impeachment Debate

IRS Asks Grand Jury Pr<

By Mary McGrory

Star-News Staff Writer

The impeachment debate has given
the Republicans on the House Judiciary
Committee an excruciating opportunity.
Under painful circumstances, they are
demonstrating vividly that not all mem-
bers of their party are arrogant, greedy
and vindictive.

Those Republicans who would im-
peach are more anguished and angry
than the Democrats, and more immers-
ed in the evidence. They unaffectedly
reveal their chagrin — and also their

patriotism, conscience and reverence
for the Constitution.

Only one of their number, Rep. Wiley
Mayne of Iowa, stooped to pettiness. At
the first opportunity, one of his brothers
put him down hard for his mean sugges-
tion that Lyndon Johnson, another man
who grew rich in the presidency, should
have been impeached.

WITH FEW exceptions, the members
on both sides have risen to the occasion.

The level of the debate has been so ele-
vated, and its tone so civil, that it is not
too much to say that if maintained it
could lead to a restoration of public es-
teem for politicians generally. All of-
ficeholders are manifestly not clowns,
hypocrites or nit-pickers.

Republicans all over the country may
take heart as they contemplate the
handsome young scholar from Maine,
William S. Cohen, the benign aristocrat
from New York, Hamilton Fish Jr., and
Tom Railsback of Illinois, a man of deep
feeling and manifest good will.

And listening to the fiery accents of
M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia, who
stood up to the ogre, looked it in the eye
and said, “Watergate is our shame,”
they heard once again the splendid
moral outrage that has been denied
them for the last two years, because of
its total absence in the White House.

“THESE THINGS happened in the
Republican administration while we
had a Republican in the White House,

Point of View

and every single person convicted to
date has one way or the other owed alle-
giance to the Republican party,” he
cried, to the astonishment of many in the
hearing room who had never before
seen him open his mouth. “These things
have happened in our house and it is our
responsibility to do what we can to clear
it up.’ 5 *

Rep. Lawrence Hogan, of Maryland,
who beat the rush by announcing his
intention to vote for impeachment, and
was promptly knifed by the White
House as an opportunist, made an im-
pressive review of the evidence, re-
proached his fellows for seeking “an
arrow in the heart,” bade them look at
the mosaic of evil.

Even the President’s most rabid
loyalist, David Dennis of Indiana, who
hitherto has always addressed the
chairman in a furious screech, com-

posed himself and gave an entirely ra-
tional presentation of the transgres-
sions. He offered the arguable thesis that
reform of political institutions is a bet-
ter answer than “prosecuting an imper-
fect president who probably represents
us in our strengths and weaknesses.”
Rep. Harold Froelich of Wisconsin, a
stumpy freshman who took some ritual
conservative swipes at the press and
the committee staff, outlined his con-
cern for missing tapes, undelivered
tapes and tape gaps. He bit his lip, his
voice choked, as he concluded wretch-
edly, “I am concerned about impeach-
ing my President for his actions.”

MISERY loves company, and the
Republicans have it in the Southern
Democrats, who are much more behold-
en to Richard Nixon for regional favors
and were expected to cling to him to the
end.

Rep. James Mann, D-S.C., whose pale
face seems carved in marble, made a
moving speech about “the men who

have died for our system on the battle-
field and men who have ended their ca-
reers on behalf of the system.”

And Rep. Walter Flowers, D-Ala.,
who wears an American flag pin on his
lapel and dwells in Wallace country,
told how he wakes up at night and
thinks it must be “a sordid dream” that
he is contemplating impeachment. He
bleakly stated the dilemma: Would it be
more destructive of all we hold dear to
impeach the President than not to irfi-
peachhim?

From time to time, someone warns
that impeachment will “tear the coun-
try apart.” As the process unfolds in the
hearing room, it seems more likely to
bring it together. For the coalition
which elected Richard Nixon, Republi-
cans and Southern Democrats, has now
re-formed to remove him from office.

They will not only vote for it, they
will sell it on the floor of the House.
From their appearance so far, they ap-
pear quite capable of making it “im-
peachment with honor.”

idCLSh 5fCLT

Highlights of Comments
by Committee Members

Following are highlights of the
positions taken by members of the
House Judiciary Committee yester-
day in debate over draft articles of
impeachment

Charles E. Wiggins

R-Calif.

I cannot express adequately the
depth of my feeling that this case
must be decided according to the
law, and on no other basis. . . If we
were, ladies and gentlemen, to de-
cide this case on any other basis
than the law, on any other basis
than the law, and the evidence ap- s
plicable thereto, it occurs to me, my
colleagues, that we would be doing
a greater violence to the Constitu-
tion than any misconduct alleged to
Richard Nixon. - ,

The law requires that we decide
the case on the evidence. Nobody
doubts that. On the evidence. It
must trouble you, Mr. Doar, I am
sure, as a possible assistant to man-
agers in the Senate, to consider the
evidence as distinguished from the
material which we have made —
been made available before this
Committee — 38 books of material.
My guess, Mr. Doar, you could put
all of the admissible evidence in
half of one book

We are told that the standard
must be that the evidence is clear
and convincing, clear and convinc-
ing . It must be clear and not
ambiguous. It must be convincing
and not confused and jumbled by
other facts. The force of that clear
and convincing evidence must drive
us to the conclusion unwillingly but
drive us to the conconclusion that
Richard Nixon must be impeached
for demonstrated and proved high
crimes and misdemeanors

John Conyers Jr.

D-Mich.

The President took the power of
is office and under the guise of
protecting and executing the laws
hat he swore to uphold, he abused
hem and in so doing he has
eopardized the strength and integ-
ity of the Constitution and laws of
ie land the protections that they
ught to afford all of the people.

It was more than just a wiretap-
ping between friends and govern-
ment but it was the beginning of a
policy of corruption that started
then and spread to three different
levels because it embraced, first of
all, a decision not to entrust to the
American people the true and dif-
ficult nature of the war policy that
this Administration had embarked
upon. And second, it was so caught
up with that policy that it was ready
to deceive the elected representa-
tives of the Congress on what we
were doing and what we were sup-
posedly voting money for. And
tmrd, and logically, the outcome of
the first two, is that the Administra-
tion finally could not even trust
themselves.

David Dennis

R-Ind.

This is an emotional matter we
have before us, loaded with political
overtones, and replete with both
individual and national tragedy.
Yet, I suggest that we will judge it
best and most fairly if we approach
it dispassionately and analyze it
professionally as lawyers who are
engaged in the preparation and in
the assessment of a case. In doing
this, of course, we cannot approach
or decide this important matter on
the basis of whether we like or dis-
like President Nixon, whether we do
or do not in general support his poli-
cies. The question rather is whether
or not proof exists, convincing proof
of adequate weight and evidentiary
competence to establish that the
President of the United States has
been guilty of high crimes and mis-
demeanors within the meaning of
the Constitution so as to justify the
radical action of his impeachment
and removal and disgrace from the
high office to which he was elected
by the American people . . .

Richard Nixon has much to an-
swer for, and he has even more to
answer for to me as a conservative
Republican than he does to my
liberal friends on the other side of
the aisle.

But, I join in no political lynching
where hard proof fails as to this
President or any other president.

Delbert L. Latta

R-Ohio

We cannot make articles of im-
peachment against the President of
the United States by attempting to
infer that he had knowledge of
wrongdoing that was going on in his
administration and yes, lo and be-
hold, in the Committee to Re-elect

REP. OWENS

Wayne Owens

D-Utahi

I believe that the impeachment of
this President, if it resulted in his
removal and his replacement, by
Gerald Ford, would not be to the po-
litical advantage of my Party but
the totality of the evidence has con-
vinced me that it would be to the
public benefit of my country. It is
possible that in a Senate trial addi-
tional evidence which we have not
seen would be presented in the
President’s defense and no one
knows, nor should they pre-judge
whether the Senate would convict.
That would depend upon the evi-
dence presented to them. But the
weight of the evidence presented to
this committee now stands clearly
land convincingly for impeachment.
W I take no joy and no satisfaction
in this decision. I do not take pleas-
ure in pointing an accusing finger
and it is a disgusting and distasteful
task. It is a joyless resolution to a
heartbreaking problem which we

REP. LATTA

the President, which was composed
of Democrats, Republicans and
Independents alike.

Neither can we try to make him
responsible under the old theory of
principal of agent, as some of these
articles are proposing.

To impeach there must be direct
Presidential involvement, and the
evidence thus far has failed to pro-
duce it. . .

Certainly during this committee’s
deliberations, one of the more
important questions to be resolved
was whether to choose to believe
John Dean or the President of the
United States. Eight of the nine wit-
nesses before the Committee testi-’
fied they had not discussed acts of
wrongdoing with the President.
Here again, John Dean stands
alone.

In conclusion, let me say if the
Committee decides to recommend
impeachment of the President,
based on the wrongdoing of others,
the evidence is here, and it is clear
and convincing; if the Committee
decides to recommend impeach-
ment based on direct evidence of
Presidential involvement in wrong-
doing, the evidence is not here. The
case is that simple.

Ray Thornton

D-Ark.

We have before us a momentous
and a difficult decision. I have ap-
proached it as a matter of law, and
because I have faith that the people
of this country believe in a system
of law to which all men are subject
is a system that we want, and must
preserve, I did not ask for, and I
don’t particularly enjoy the duty of
sitting here in judgment on any*
other fnan’s fulfillment of his oath
of office.

i musi say, as tne gentleman trom
Virginia did, that while I will re-
serve my final judgment until the
vote which will follow later, I can
now say that on the basis of all of
the evidence which has now been
produced, I have reached the firm
conviction that President Nixon has
violated his oath of office by abuse
of power, and by obstruction of jus-
tice, that these offenses constitute
high crimes and misdemeanors, re-
quiring trial on these charges be-
fore the Senate of the United States
of America.

In my view, to find otherwise
would effectively repeal the right of
this body to act as a check on the
abuses which we feel have existed.

uuash 3+CLS

Elizabeth, Holtzman

d-n.y: v

The thousands of pages before
this committee, they are witness, in
my opinion, to a systematic arroga-
tion of power, to a thoroughgoing
abuse of the President’s oath of of-
fice, to a pervasive violation of the
rule of law. What we have seen is a
seamless web of misconduct so seri-
ous that it leaves me shaken . . .

Mr. Chairman, I feel very deeply
that the President’s impeachment
and removal from office is the only
remedy for the acts we have seen
because the presidential coverup is
continuing even through today.
There is no way it can be ended
short of the President’s removal.

And secondly, because the viola-
tion of the people’s constitutional
rights has been so systematic and
so persistent I must conclude that it
is only through the President’s
removal from office that we can
guarantee to the American people
that they will remain secure in the
liberties granted to them under the
Constitution.

Lawrence J. Hogan

R-Md.

It is not easy for me to align my-
self against the President, to whom
I gave my enthusiastic support in
three presidential campaigns, on
whose side I have stood in many a
legislative battle, whose accom-
plishments in foreign and domestic
affairs I have consistently applaud-
ed.

But it is impossible for me to con-
done or ignore the long train of
abuses to which he has subjected
the Presidency and the people of
this country. The Constitution and
my own oath of office demand that I
“bear true faith and allegiance” to
the principles of law and justice
upon which this nation was founded,
and I cannot, in good conscience,
turn away from the evidence of evil
that is to me so clear and compel-
ling . . .

I think it is a mistake for any of us
to begin looking for one sentence or
one word or one document which
compels us to vote for or against im-
peachment. It is like looking at a
mosaic and going down and focus-
ing in on one single tile in the mosa-
ic and saying I see nothing wrong in
that one little piece of this mosaic.
We have to step back and we have
to lodk at the whole picture and when
you look at the whole mosaic of the
evidence that has come before us, to
me it is overwhelming beyond a'
\ reasonable doubt.

James R. Mann

D-S.C.

sfSiu know some of the things that
fause me to wonder are the phrases
that keep coming back to me, oh, it
is just politics. Or, let him who is
without sin cast the first stone.

Are we so morally bankrupt that
we would accept a past course of
wrongdoing or that we would decide
that the system that we have is in-

capable of sustaining a system of
law because we aren’t perfect?
There has been one perfect to whom
one of those statements is at-
tributed. But our country has grown
strong because men have died for

the system. You will hear “the sys-
tem” used by each of us but we
have built our country on the Con-
stitution and that system contem-
plates and that system has resulted
in men putting that system above
their own political careers.

That system has been defended on
battlefields and statesmen have
ended their careers on behalf of the
system and have either passed into
oblivion or into immortality. We
have all read of the role of Edmund
G. Ross in the Johnson impeach-
ment and how he voted his con-
science.

Did we also know that about 20
years later he said that he would
hope that his vote would not be con-
strued as being in derogation of that
constitutional power of impeach-
ment and that at a proper time on
some future day some Congress
would have the courage to fulfill its
duty.

M. Caldwell Butler

R-Va.

There are frightening implica-
tions for the future of our country if
we do not impeach the President of
the United States. Because we will
be in this impeachment proceeding
establishing a standard of conduct
for the President of the United
States which will for all time be a
matter of public record.

If we fail to impeach, we have
condoned and left unpunished a
course of conduct totally inconsist-
ent with the reasonable expecta-
tions of the American people; we
will have condoned and left unpun-
ished a presidential course of con-
duct designed to interfere with and
obstruct the very process which he
is sworn to uphold; and we will
have condoned and left unpunished
an abuse of power totally without
justification. And we will have said
to the American people: “These
misdeeds are inconsequential and
unimportant.”

■ * In short, power appears to

have corrupted. It is a sad chapter
in American history, but I cannot
condone what I have heard; I can-
not excuse it, and I cannot and will
not stand still for it.

Mr. Chairman, while I still re-
serve my final judgment, I would be
less than candid if I did not now say
’that my present inclination is to
support articles incorporating my
view of the charges of obstruction of
justice and abuse of power; but
there will be no joy in it for me.’

Joshua Eilberg

D-Pa.

J Richard Nixon is guilty beyond any
reasonable doubt of numerous acts
of impeachable conduct, regardless
of any standard we apply.

What we are faced with is a gross
disregard for the Constitution and
the very safeguards in it which the
framers hoped would prevent the
President from becoming a king or
dictator

The evidence presented during
our hearings portrays a man who
believes he is above the law and,
who is surrounded by advisers who
believe they owe their allegiance to
him and not to their country or the
Constitution, For this reason they
were only too willing to carry out
his orders and directions no matter
what the cost to other individuals or
groups or the nation.

As a result of this atmosphre in
the White House, a conspiracy —
which is still going on — was
organized to obstruct justice.

Hamilton Fish

R-N.Y.

It is suggested that we as politi-
cians are all too tainted with cor-
ruption or moral imperfection to de-

cide on the sins of Watergate.
Carried further, it is suggested that
we are all really guilty, that civic
unrighteousness is collective.

If I were to accept this thesis, that
I and my colleagues can no longer
separate our sins from those of
others, we are no longer capable of
making any worthwhile judgments
whatsoever.

At the outset of this debate I find
myself deeply troubled over evi-
dence of Presidential complicity in
thwarting justice and in the alleged
abuse of power of that great office,
particularly the use of the enormous
power of the United States Govern-
ment to invade and impinge upon
the private rights of individuals.
Every member of this committee
and the Congress must evaluate the.
facts in the ligfit of adherence to the i
law, devotion to the Constitution,
and to the great institutions of our
land. If the evidence is clear, then
our constitutional duty is no less
clear.

Jerome R. Waldie '

D-Calif. <

Has there been one iota of evi-
dence, one shred of evidence,'
exonerating and exculpatory in its
effect introduced on behalf of the
President by the President or any-
one else since those Senate Commit-
tee hearings?. . .There has not been
an iota of evidence. The President
has had it within his power, if such
evidence exists, to bring it forth and
to exonerate him from these
charges and to exonerate the nation
from the anguish he has pushed us
into, and that we still labor under.
But he has not done so. In response
to my friends on the other side of
this Committee, who suggest the
Evidence does not show that the
President has done anything, that
simply is not so. There is a mountain
Qf evidence showing that the Presi-
dent has acted to obstruct justice.

You cannot look at this case with-
out feeling a deep sadness but a
deeper anger, a deeper anger that
this country was jeopardized to the
extent it has been in the past two
years, and you cannot look at the.
evidence in this case and the total-
ity of what confronts us in this case
without understanding that unless
we fulfill our obligations as these
fallible human beings in this genius
of a governmental structure, our ob-
ligation and our duty is to impeach
this President that this country
might get about doing its business
the way it should do and pursuant
to standards that have been set for
this country since its beginning.

Walter Flowers

D-Ala.

And tneffuie?^S^ft^Dther side of
the issue that I speak of. What if we
failed to impeach? Do we ingrain
forever in the very fabric of our
Constitution a standard of conduct
m our highest office that in the least
is deplorable, and at worst is im-
peachable?

... You know, the power of the
Presidency is a public trust, just'
like our office. And the people must
be able to believe and rely on their
President. Yet, there is some evi-
dence before us that shows that the
President has given solemn public
assurances to the people involving

Wiley Mayne

R-Iowa

Direct Presidential involvement
in ... a cover-up must be proved,
but so far as I have been able to
hear up to this time, all of the evi-
dence on this, or almost all of it, is
purely circumstantial.

persuaaeu m our remaining deliber-
ations, but as I listened to Mr. Doar
in his argument for the prosecution,
it seemed to me that he pointed to
no direct evidence of Presidential
involvement in the cover-up, but
had to arrive at his conclusion of
Presidential involvement by a series
of inferences piled upon other infer-
ences. And I noticed that every time
he made an inference, it was an
inference unfavorable to the Pres-
ident of the United States

LBJ left the White House a very
wealthy man, but was he ever inves-
tigated in the manner that Richard
Nixon has been investigated, or
investigated at all? I wonder could
the reason be that for all but four of
the thirty-two years that he was in
public office, his party, the Demo-
cratic Party, controlled both houses
of the Congress, and during much of
that time, he was a highly influen-
tial leader of that Party

the truth and the faith of his power-,
ful office when those assurances
were not true, but were designed to
deceive the people and mislead the
agencies 9f government who were
investigating the charges against
Mr. Nixon’s men.

If the trust of the people and in
the world of the man, or men, or
women, to whom they had given
their highest honor, or any public
trust is betrayed, if the people can-
not know that their President is
candid and truthful with them, then
I say the very basis of our govern-
ment is undermined.

THE NEW YORK TIM

Jjnoeachment Proceeding’s: Butler Sees

FRI DAY, JULY 26, 1974 - -- i.-..:., • -v

‘Frightening Implications’ in No Action

i M. Caldwell Butler

11 For years we Republicans have cam-
paigned against corruption and miscon-
duct in the Administration of the Gov-
ernment of the United States by the
other party.

And somehow or other we have found
the circumstances to bring that issue
before the American people in every,
succeeding national campaign.

But Watergate is our shame. Those
things happened in the Republican Ad-
ministration while we had a Republican
in the White House and every single,
person convicted to date has one way]
or the other owed allegiance to the Re-
publican Tarty. .

We cannot, indulge ourselves the lux-
ury of patronizing or excusing the mis-
conduct of' our own people. These things
have happened in our house. And it
our responsibility to do what we can to
clear it up.

It is we, not the Democrats, who must
demonstrate that we are capable of
enforcing the high standards we would
set for them.

The gentleman from California, Mr.
Wiggins, in his remarks of this morn-,
ing reminds us once more that we must
measure the conduct of the President
against the standards imposed by law.

I would Jike to share with you for a
moment some observations I have with
reference to these, standards.

The conduct which the American
people are reasonably entitled to expect
of the President is spelled out in part
in our Constitution and part in our
statutes. And we. are particularly grate-
ful to our colleague from New York,
Congressman Fish, for his exposition on
the duties imposed upon the President
by our Constitution.

It is my judgment also that the stand-
ard of conduct which the American
people are reasonably entitled to expect
of their President is established in part
by experience and precedent. And this
is one reason why I am so convinced
about what hes been revealed to us by
our investigation.

It will be remembered that only t
few hours ago the gentleman fron
Iowa, Mr. Mayne, has argued that w
should not impeach because of com
parable misconduct in previous Admin
istrations.

‘Frightening Implications’

There are frightening implications for
the future of our country if we do not
impeach the President, because we will
by this proceeding establish as a mat-
ter of record a standard of conduct
for the President which will be for all
time a matter of public record.

If we fail to impeach, we have con-
doned and left unpunished a course of
conduct totally inconsistent with the
reasonable expectations of the Amer-
ican people. We will have condoned
and left unpunished a Presidential course
of conduct designed to interfere with
and obstruct the- ^ery process he has
sworn to uphold. And we will have
condoned and left unpunished an abuse
of power totally without justification.

And we will have said to the Ameri-
can people these misdeeds are inconse-
quential and unimportant.

The people of the United States are
entitled to assume that their President
is telling the truth. The pattern of mis-
representation and half-truths that
emerges from our investigation reveals
a Presidential quality cynically based
on the premise that the truth itself is
negotiable.

Consider the case of Richard Klein-
dienst, nominee for the Attorney Gen-
eral of the United States. The President
had told him in unmistakable terms
that he was not to appeal the I.T.T.
case. But before the 'Senate, of the
United States, Mr. Kleindienst explicitly
denied any effort by the President to
influence him in this regard. And the
President who had knowledge of this
affirmed to the people of the United
States his continuing confidence in this
man.

The record is replete with official
Presidential misrepresentations of non-
involvement, and representations of
investigations and reports never made
if indeed undertaken at all. There are
two references to a Dean report which
we have not seen.

Consider the case of Daniel Schorr.
In a moment of euphoria on Air Force
I, Presidential aides called upon the
F.B.I. to investigate this Administration
critic. Upon revelation, Presidential
aides fabricated and the President af-
firmed that Schorr was being investi-
gated for. possible Federal appointment.

Nothing could be further from the
truth.

Let me also observe that throughout
the extensive transcripts made avail-
able to us of intimate Presidential con-
versation and discussions there is no
real evidence of regret for what has
occurred or remorse or resolutions to
change and precious little reference to
or concern for constitutional responsi-
bility, or reflection upon the basic obliga-
tions of the office of the President.

In short, a power appears to have
corrupted. It is a sad chapter in Ameri-
can history but I cannot condone what
I have heard, I cannot excuse it and
cannot and- will not stand still for_

.Mftj

M

The New York Times

M. Caldwell Butler, Virginia Republican

"It is a sad chapter in American his-
tory.. . . I cannot and will not stand
still for it”

Paul S. Sarbanes

D-Md. •

P There are many other instances
in which there is evidence to sup-
port, both direct and circumstan-
tial, the President’s direct involve-
ment. Beyond that, I think careful
thought needs to be given to the
superintendency theory of James
Madison which was expressed by
one of my colleagues yesterday
evening. You must ask yourself
whether a Chief Executive of this
land, who surrounds himself at the
highest levels with men who fla-
grantly abuse our constitutional
processes, should be called to ac-
count for their actions. What con-
cept of government is it if the per-
son at the head is to walk away
claiming that he knows nothing,
sees nothing, hears nothing, while
those closest to him, those that have
been referred to as the alter egos,
proceed about their destructive
business . . .

The distinguishing characteristic
of our system of government, that
distinguishes it from totalitarian
systems, is that we do not sacrifice
the means for the end, and it is not
only the end result that is impor-
tant, by the process by which we get
there. It is the democratic process
that guarantees our freedoms to
participate in that decision that con-
trols how power is to be exercised.
That is what distinguishes this gov-
ernmental system from those that
are not free, and do not provide for
their citizens a measure of self gov-
ernment.

William S. Cohen

R-Maine

Well, first, let me say that con-
spiracies are not born in the sun-
light of direct observation. They are
hatched in dark recesses, amid
whispers and code words and ver-
bal signals, and many times the
footprints of guilt must b£ traced
with a searchlight of probability, of
common experience.

Secondly, I want to point out that
circumstantial evidence is just as
valid evidence in the life of the law
and that of logic as is direct evi-
dence. In fact, sometimes I think it
is much stronger. If you went to
sleep at night and there was — the
ground was bare outside and you
woke up with fresh snow on the
ground, then certainly you would
conclude as a reasonable person
that snow had fallen, if you had not
seen it . . .

The most serious and dangerous
threats to our society and liberties
occurs when those in positions of
power undertake to turn neutral in-
struments of government into a gen-
tleman of convenience and retribu-
tion against private citizens who en-
gage in the exercise of their Consti-
tutionally protected freedoms. If we
are to have confidence in the con-
cept of even-handed treatment
under the law then we simply can-
not condone this type of

conduct ... ’

One of the unfortunate things
about this entire process is that
there are some who would have you
believe that the White House has
been under unfair and unmitigated
assault by this Congress aided and
abetted by the liberal press. I hap-
pen to think that some of the grav T
est, the most melancholy of wounds
are those that are self-inflicted. And
I say that because I am thinking of
the doctrines of executive privilege,
national security, valuable and vi-
able doctrines that have been taint-
ed because they have been invoked

Continued from A-7

i iM

Charles B. Rangel

v&th d-n.y.

Some say this is a sad day in
America’s history. I think it could
perhaps be one of our brightest
In days. It could be really a test of the
strength of our Constitution, be-
cause what I think it means to most
Americans is that when this or any
other President violates his sacred
oath of office, the people are not left
helpless, that they can, through the
House of Representatives charge
him, and his guilt will finally be de-
cided in the halls of the United
States Senate.

What is really sad about this thing
is that morality is no longer expect-
ed in government. Indeed, it would
not have been sensational news that
my President, the President of the
United States, decided to obey an
order of the United States Supreme
Court. That should not have been
news, because I can’t consider that
any other citizen of the United
States would even have thought
about defying such an order from
the highest court in the land ...

We meet the real challenge to-
night. We don’t hear anything about
truth, morality, the protection of
our Constitution in any of the presi-
dential conversations, whether they
be in the tape or whether they be
edited transcripts. But, we hope
that our nation’s White House will
never again have to hear all of the
sordid crimes that have been com-
mitted by the President and other
people, ^nd I would uphold my oath
of office again and call for the im-
peachment of a man who has not.

REP. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN:

Barbara Jordan

D-Tex.

The Constitution charges the
• President with the task of taking
‘care that the laws be faithfully exe-
cuted, and yet the President has
counseled his aides to commit per-
jury, willfully disregard the secrecy
of grand jury proceedings, conceal
' surreptitious entry, attempt to com-
promise a federal judge while pub-
licly displaying his cooperation with
the processes of criminal justice.

A President is impeachable if he
attempts to subvert the Constitu-
tion.

If the impeachment provision in
the Constitution of the United States
will not reach the offenses charged
here, then perhaps that 18th century
Constitution should be abandoned to
a 20th century paper shredder. Has
the President committed offenses
and planned and directed and
acquiesced in a course of conduct
which the Constitution will not toler-
ate? That is the question. We know
that. We know the question. We
should now forthwith proceed to an-
swer our deliberations, guide our
debate, and guide our decision.

—Star-News Photographer Walter Oates"

. it leaves me shaken . .

t Joseph J. Maraziti

UJOt-Sfr? R-N.J.

V&shQ I would like to say that we have
accumulated a tremendous amount
of information, a vast mass of infor-
mation. Some of it is relevant. Much
of it is not relevant. And I must say
that in many areas there is a lack of
conclusiveness — a lack of certain-
ty and a lack of the kind of evidence
we ought to have if we seek to re-
move the Chief of State of this gov-
ernment — the kind of evidence we
ought to have if we, the House and
the Senate, — a total of 535 people,
if we are to remove the President of
the United States, elected by over 47
million people . . .

I can only say that I do not be-

I lieve Mr. Dean, and I don’t believe
the American people will believe
Mr, Dean. If I have to choose be-
tween Mr. Dean and the President
as to who is telling the truth, I have
no difficulty in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that I
listened with interest to your open-

S ing statement and I concur with
that portion of your statement in
which you say that we must deal
fairly with every man. It is my hope
that we adopt that principle ex-
pounded by you in our final and
most crucial deliberations.

> • < . V

Voices of New South Emerge at Hearing

By R. W. APPLE Jr.

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, July 25-
Representative James R,
Mann, an imperturbable
Democrat from Greenville,
S. C., surveyed his colleagues
on the House Judiciary Com-
mittee.

“We have different back-
grounds,” he said. “W e have
different biases, different
philosophies. This is a big
country, and we represent a
cross section of that coun-
try.”

You could hear those dif-
ferences all day and into this
evening as member after
member of the committee
stated his view of the im-
peachment proceedings
against President Nixon,
speaking in the accents of
their regions.

There was Fish of Dutch-
ess County, New York,
with the aristocratic intona-

tions of a Franklin Roosevelt
or an Averell Harriman; Den-
nis of Indiana, with the flat
twang of the flatlands, talk-
ing of the Supreme Court.

Wiggins, Waldie and Dan-
ielson of California, speaking
in that neutral accent char-
acteristic of their state,, the
one radio announcers' are
taught to emulate; Rddino of
New Jersey, his speech tinged
with the harshness of Newark
and Bayonne and Jersey City;
Flowers of Alabama, comfy,
down-home.

But there was something

NEWS INDEX

Page

About New_York . 28

Books .....37

Bridge 36

Business 43-52

Crossword 37

Editorials 32

Family/Style 38

Page

Man in the News . 14

Movies 21-29

Music 21-29

Obituaries 34

Op-Ed 33

Sports 18-20 j

Theaters 21-29!

Financial 43-52 Transportation ...58

Going Out Guide 22 TV and Radio 59

Letters 32 I Weather 58

News Summary and Index, Page 31

of moment lurking beneath
the accents, something a bit
startling. The Southerners
who spoke today were not
the Congressional Southern-
ers of yore— not the Clag-
horns the nation came to
know through cartoons and
anecdotes and Fred Allen’s
radio show. Not those florid
orators in string ties and ice-
cream suits. Not Bilbo or
Rivers or McKellar.

Instead, on display today
was the new South. In Mr.
Mann and Representatives
Walter Flowers, Democrat of
Alabama, and -M. Caldwell
Butler, Republican of Virginia,
the television audience had a
chance to see men relatively
moderate in view, unremark-
able in dress, low-keyed in
I manner.

Like the region they rep-
resent, they were obviously

Continued on Page 14, Column 4

K

Continued From Page 1, Col. 8

struggling to reconcile new
and old values. For all their
modernism, their lack of ob-
vious regional foibles, they
retained the South’s love for
language and institutions.

To many in the hearing
room, including a number
of committee members, Mr.
Mann’s 15-minute presenta-
tion seemed particularly elo-
quent. Never raising his
voice, seldom glancing at his
sparse notes, pausing for em-
phasis at just the right mo-
ments, he reminded some of
a gifted rural parson.

The American system of
government, he said, ,had
been “defended on the bat-
tlefields” and in the halls of
Congress by men who either
“passed into oblivion or into
immortality.”

“How much,” he said, in
■his quiet, almost courtly evo-
cation of the patriotism the
South has cherished, “how
much .1 would have liked to
have heard on the transcripts,
‘Let’s do it because it’s good
for the country.* ”

Similarly Mr. Flowers,
speaking about the “terrible

alternatives” of convulsive
impeachment or wrongdoing
condoned. And Mr. Butler,
whose almost headlong man-
ner of presentation seemed to
conflict with his long face,
receding chin' ’ and rather
sleepy eyes.

There was a touch of Jef-
ferson in his comment that
“the abuse of power is the
very essence of tyranny,”
and that was fitting, for Mr.
Butler’s home in Roanoke is
only 100 miles from Mr. Jef-
ferson^ in Charlottesville.

Watergate Is On Shame*

“For years, we Republicans
have campaigned against cor-
ruption,” the Virginian said.
“But Watergate is our shame.
We cannot indulge ourselves
in the luxury of patronizing
or excusing corrupt conduct.”

It was not easy for any of
the. three, Mr. Butler, suggest-
ing that he would vote for
impeachment, remarked that
“there will be no joy in it
for me.” And a colleague re-
ported that Mr. Flowers, out-
wardly so-x.calm, had a new
ulcer.

If the Southerners set the
rhetorical tone for much of
the day, two Californians —

Representatives Charles E.
Wiggins, a Republican, and
Jerome R. Waldie, a Demo-
crat— -seemed in many ways
the most dramatic of adver-
saries.

Mr. Wiggins is the unoffi-
cial floor manager of the
President’s defenders, Mr.
Waldie, one of the earliest and
most outspoken of Mr. Nix-
on’s adversaries. Mr. Wiggins
comes from Southern Califor-
nia (he represents part of the
President’s old Congressional
district), Mr. Waldie from the
North, Mr. Wiggins dresses
flashily, Mr. Waldie somberly.
Mr. Wiggins has wavy white
hair, Mr. Waldie dark hair
with gray sideburns. And Mr.
Wiggins relentlessly argued
on narrow evidentiary
grounds, while Mr. Waldie
insisted on the larger picture!

Mr. Wiggins began by at-
tacking as inconsequential
the evidence of Presidential
misuse of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, and then
when a colleague yielded ad-
ditional time to him, derided
evidence that Mr. Nixon had
misused the Internal Revenue
Service.

Noting that the committee

staff had produced 38 books
of evidence, Mr. Wigging
looked at * John Doar, the
committee’s special counsel,
and commented, “My guess,
Mr. Doar, is that you could
put all the admissible evi-,
dence in one-half of one single
book.”

Mr. Waldie replied calmly
but forcefully, gesturing with
a partially clenched right
hand. “It is just not true”
that evidence is lacking* die
said, accusing Mr. Nixon of
operating by “the saddest
standard of conduct.”

‘Had It Erased’

“There is a duty to re-
spond,” Mr. Waldie contend-
ed. “Yet there is not one
single instance of the Presi-
dent going to the authorities
with evidence of wrongdo-
ing.”

Discussing the lS^-minute
gap in a key Presidential tape
recording, he said that “the
inference is inescapable: the
President had it erased.”

Mr. Wiggins, craning his
neck at the opposite' end of
the room, shook his head at
that. Moments later, he got
his chance for rebuttal before
the television cameras. He

pronounced himself frustrat-
ed and said it irritated him
that “you just have to sit and
take these sweeping allega-
tions, absolutely unsupported
by the evidence.”

But he had evidently made
some points.

A third Californian, Repre-
sentative Don Edwards, a
Democrat, slipped a note to
Representative Peter W. Ro-
dino Jr., Democrat of New
Jersey, the committee chair-,
man, urging that someone be
designated to reply to Mr.
Wiggins.

“He’s making a first-class
attack,” said Mr. Edwards. .
“He’s trying to cut the guts
out of our case.”

The replies were quick in
coming, and not from Demo-
crats alone. One of the most
spirited came from Represent-
ative William S. Cohen, a
33-year-old Republican from
Maine, who accused Mr. Wig-
gins of quoting out of con-
text and asked how his breth-
ren could tolerate “silent
and subtle subversion” of
laws and the Constitution

“How in the world,” asked
Mr. Cohen? “did we ever get
from the Federalist papers to 5
the edited transcript?”

fiXTiCLP I

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

— sfr'“W

H..

ROLL CALL

OX . .

THE COMMITTEE TALLY

HR. DONOHUE..
HR. BROOKS

MR. KASTENMEIEB-
MR. EDWARDS—

MR. HUNGATEL

MR. CONYERS-
MR. EttBERG-.

MR. WALDUL.

MR. FLOWERSL
MR.MANN_

MR. SARBANES...
MR SEIBERUNO-
MR. DANIELSON..
MR. DRINAN

MR. RANGEL

MS. JORDA N

MR. THORNTON-

MS. HOLTZMAN-
MR. OWENS—.

MR. MEZVmSKT-

HR. HUTCHINSON.

MR. MCCLORT

MR. SMITH _

MR. SANDMAN_

MR. RAILSBACK

MR. WIGGINS.

MR. DENNIS

MR. FISH .

MR. MAYNE x

MR. HOGAN.U.

MR. BUTLERS

MR. COHEN i

MR IXYTT^

MR FROEHLIOL.
MR MOORHEAD.

MR. MARAZm

MR. LATTA *

$A

&

y

iA

1 £_

1

1 ^-

•

►

MR RODINO, Chairman

TbTAt.

A COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT VOTE
BY SIZABLE BIPARTISAN MAJORITY
IS INDICATED 45 DEBATE GOES ON

SOME VOICE FEAR

'Irreparable Damage’
Seen if Charges
Are Preferred

The Hew York Times and Associated Press

Charles E. Wiggins, top left, assailed the evidence.
Hamilton Fish Jr., top right, James R. Mann, at left, and
William S. Cohen did not reject impeachment.

By JAMES M. NAUGHTON

WASHINGTON L July 25a M
large, bipartisan majority of
the House Judiciary Committee
signaled its readiness today to
adopt a reolution formally pro-
posing the impeachment of
President Nixon.

In the second day of gen-
eral debate, nearly all of the
Democrats and half a dozen of

Excerpts from the committee
proceedings , Pages 11-13 .

the 17 Republicans on the com-
mittee declared sharply or
hinted broadly that they would
support one or both of the two
central proposed articles of im-
peachment that lay on the
‘committee counsel table.

The draft articles, to be de-
bated in detail tomorrow, then
amended and, by next week,
voted upon, accused President
Nixon of the following:

^Acting “directly and per-
sonally” and through close as-
sociates to “delay, impede and
obstruct” the investigation of
| the June 17, 1972, Watergate
burglary in violation of a con-
istitutional oath Mr. Nixon
twice took to uphold and en-
force the nation’s laws.

^Abusing the authority of
j the Presidency in action as
| diverse as the “illegal surveil-
lance” of citizens, the attempt
| to use confidential data of the
Internal Revenue Service for
■political goals and the disregard
of Judiciary Committee sub-
poenas “in contempt of the
House of Representatives” and
defiance of the Constitution.

Evidence Held Inferential

A bare majority of the com*
kriittee’s Republicans, but too
H'ew to block an impeachment
recommendation, contended in
the nationally televised debate
that the evidence was ' too in-
ferential to be persuasive, and
that it would do “irreparable
damage” to the nation to prefer
charges on which the President
might ultimately be stripped of
his office.

“1 am as shocked as anyone
by the misdeeds of Watergate,”
said Representative David W*
Dennis, Republican of Indiana,
“But I join in no political
lynching where hard proof fails
3s to this President or any;
othei President.”"
Representative Carlos J.
Moorhead, Republican ( of Cali-
fornia, told the committee and
the national TV audience that
there was “a big moat you
have to jump across to get the
President involved, and I can-
not jump across that moat.”

But as one after another of
the 21 Democrats, including
Southern conservatives, and
seven key Republicans who had
! withheld comment on the evi*

They Contend Pressing of
Case Against President
Would Harm Country

Continued From Page I, Col. 8

dence disclosed their attitudes
toward Mr. Nixon’s conduct,
they made clear that their
words would echo within days
in a bipartisan vote — by a mar-
gin perhaps as large as 28 to
10 — to urge the impeachment
of the nation’s 37th President.

Sadness and Anger

Democracy is “fragile,” said
Representative Jerome R. Wal-
die, Democrat of California.
“You cannot look at this case
without feeling a deep sadness,
but a deeper anger, a deeper
anger that this country was
jeopardized to the extent it has
been in the past two years,” he
said.

“I cannot in good conscience
turn away from the evidence
of evil that is, to me, so clear
and compelling,” said Repre-
sentative Lawrence J. Mogan,
Republican of Maryland.

Another Republican, Repre-
sentative Hamilton Fish Jr. of
Pipstate New York, whose
father is a leader of a citizens’
group lobbying against im-
peachment, said that he was
“deeply troubled” by the al-
leged cover-up and abuses of
authority.

Momentarily ignoring the
eyeglasses slipping down the
slope of his nose, he said, “If
the evidence is clear, then our
constitutional duty is no less
clear.”

And Representative James R
Mann, a South Carolina Demo-
crat speaking in a courtly style
but with biting sarcasm, sug-
gested that he was ready, like
earlier statesmen, to end his
career in defense of the system
and then declared that Mr.
Nixon was still withholding the
tape recordings that might seal
the outcome of impeachment.

“That evidence,” he said,
was accumulated “in the office
of the people of the United
States” — his voice stressed the
word “people” — “at 1600 Penn-
sylvania Avenue, at the ex-
pense of the taxpayers. I am
starving for it. But I will do
the best I can with what I
have got.”

Impeachment has been called,
as one committee member
noted today, “The grand in-
quest of the nation.” Befitting
such a designation, the debate
today — as did the beginning of
it last night — contained drama,
pathos and eloquence.

Representative Wiley Mayne,
Republican of Iowa, contending
that President Nixon had done
nothing more indefensible than
his predecessor had asserted
that President Johnson had en-
tered public office without fi-
nancial means and “Left the
White House a very wealthy
man” but had never beeen in-
vestigated “in the manner that
Richard Nixon has been in-
vestigated” by, a Democratic
Congress.

Across the broad dais in the
hearing room. Representative
Jack Brooks, a Texas Democrat
who had been a close friend of
Mr. Johnson’s, glared at Mr.
Mayne.

Cover-Up Is Charged

Earlier, in an extended
speech that was extemporane-
ous, Mr. Waldie’s voice vibrat-
ed with intensity, and his right
hand formed a fist that gyrated
above his desk as he said:

“Common sense tells you that
a President of the United States
does not condone the payment
of over $400,000 to seven peo-
ple occupying a D.C. jail cell
because they have committed a
burglary unless he wants some-
thing from them. That is not
compassion. That is not a char-
itable institution . . . That was
a cover-up to buy their silence
and that succeeded in buying
their silence.”

And Representative M. Cald-
well Butler, a Virginia Republi-
can who had refused repeat-
edly, until today, even to sug-
gest his perception of the evi-
dence, delivered his own in-
dictment of Mr. Nixon.

Expressing gratitude ror
“many kindnesses and cour-
tesies” extended by the Presi-
dent — not least of them support
for Mr. Butler’s Congressional
candidacy two years ago-^-Mr.
Butler nonetheless said that the
“distasteful” proceedings had
led him to conclude that “pow-
er appears to have corrupted.”

“It is a sad chapter in Amer-
ican history,” he continued.
“But I cannot condone what I
have heard. I cannot excuse it
And I cannot and will not
stand still for it.”

Eventually, as the debate
went on into the night, beyond
another spurious bomb threat
and interruptions for more mun-
dane votes on the House floor,
six members of the President’s
party joined Mr. Butler in either
firm commitments or almost in-
eluctable inclinations to en-
dorse impeachment.

They were Representatives
Robert McClory and Tom Rails-
back of Illinois, William S.
Cohen of Maine, Mr. Fish of
upstate New York, Mr. Hogan
of Maryland and, in a surprise
to most of th ecommittee, Har-
old V. Fraehlich of Wisconsin,
who cited a list of elements of
the alleged Watergate cover-up
over which he was “con-
cerned.”

The debate, while long and
general in scope, was .a pre-
lude t o the e xpected- proposal

of a motion tomorrow by Rep-
resentative Delbert L. Latta,
Republican of Ohio, to suspend
judgment until it can be de-
termined if Mr. Nixon will sup-
ply the committee with taped
evidence that the Supreme
Court ruled yesterday must be
yielded to the Watergate spe-
cial prosecution.

The motion is expected, to
lose.

Shape of Deliberations

The opening 15-minute com-
mentaries of each of the 38
committee members gave no
more than the broad shape of
the deliberations on the speci-
fic draft articles of impeach-
ment that the committee will
try to complete by early next
week.

“You cannot impeach the
President on the basis of half
a case or many partial cases
put together,” said Represen-
tative Trent Lott, Republicaq.
of Mississippi.

Representative John F. Seib-
erling. Democrat of Ohio, re-
torted that as a lawyed who
had once tried antitrust cases,
“I know of corporation execu-
tives who have pleaded guilty
and gone to jail when the
evidence of their complicity in
a conspiracy was only a frac-
tion of the evidence we have
here.”

« Representative Charles E.

iggins, a Republican who rep-
resents roughly the same Cali-
fornia district in which Mr.
Nixon’s political career began
28 years ago, made an extended
assault on the quality of the
evidence — particularly as it
pertained to the President’s al-
leged misuse of the Internal
Revenue Service and the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency.

Staring at John M. Doar,
the committee’s special counsel
and an advocate of impeach-
ment, Mr. Wiggins challenged
whether charges against the
President could stand up in a
Senate trial.

“It must trouble you, I am
sure,” he said, that out of 38
thick volumes of “material” of-
fered at hearings, “my guess, i
Mr. Doar, is you can put all of
the admissible evidence in half
of one book.”

“Simple theories, of course,
are inadequate,” Mr. Wiggins
said moments later. “That is
not evidence. A supposition,
however persuasive, is not evi-
dence. A bare possibility that
something might have hap-
pened is not evidence.”

Mr. Doar remained silent. He
listened to the debate, now
hunched over the counsel table,
now clenching a pencil between
his teeth. But later in the dya,
Mr. Cohen responded to Mr.
Wiggins’s argument that ad-
verse inferences and circum-
stantial evidence were not
enough.

Fears for System

“Conspiracies are not bom
in the sunlight of direct ob-
servation,” Mr. Cohen said.
“They are hatched in dark re-
cesses, amid whispers and code
words and verbal signals. The
footprints of guilt must often
be traced with the searchlight
of probability.”

And, after, recounting, as had
Mr. Wiggins, various elements
of evidence that might support
his conclusion, Mr. Cohen drew
this Maine mood analogy:

“If you went to sleep with
the ground outside here, and
woke up with fresh snow on
the ground, certainly you
would reasonably conclude that
snow had fallen during the
night even if you did not see
it,” he said. “So let us not
labor under the misapprehen-
sion that because some of the
evidence available to us is cir-
cumstantial it is therefore in-

adequate.”

Mr. Dennis, ascribing to the
sident “presumptively le-
1” motives in ordering the

wiretapping of Government of-
ficials and newsmen in 1969
and in the creation of the clan-
destine “plumbers” intelligence
unit at the White House in
1971, contended that impeach-
ment' would “tear asunder”
the Republican half of the two-
party system.

He called impeachment “rad-
ical surgery on the tip of the
cancer which needs therapy at
the roots” and- said that it
would be better to leave Mr.
Nixon in office and concentrate
instead on moral and govern-
mental reform.

Mr. Dennis summed up by
saying:

“There will be another elec-
tion in 1976, and we can enter
our 200th year better by pre-
serving our rights until that
time, and not trying to' purge
our sins by the persecution of
an imperfect President who
probably represents us, both in
strength and his weakness, all
too well.’’

By contrast, Representative
Joshua Eilberg, Democrat ofi
Pennsylvania, said softly that if
Mr. Nixon were to “get away
,with this ridiculous and ar-
rogant argument” that he alone j
knew which of his White:
House tapes bore evidence, “the i
power of impeachment may just'
as well be cut out of the Con-
stitution,”

Similarly, but with an Ala-
bama accent, Representative
Walter Flowers, another Demo-
crat, addressed himself to the
risk that in not impeaching, the
House might “ingrain forever
in the very fabric of our Con-
stitution a standard of conduct
in our highest office that in
the least is deplorable and at
worst is impeachable.”

Representative Paul S. Sar-
banes, a Maryland eDemocrat,
recited instances in which, he
contended, the President had
deceived the courts, Congress:
and the public and thus violated:
the underlying promise of demo- J
cratic government, a “necessity
for standards of honesty and for
truth and for integrity.”

Tone of Deliberations

On each side of the central
issue, arguments were couched
in the language of the Con-
stitution. But the tone of the
opening deliberations may best
have been struck by Mr. Hogan.

Recalling his surprise an-i
nouncement, two days ago, that
he would, as a conservative
Republican, vote for articles
of impeachment, he said that

me new YorK Itmes/George Tames

Barbara Jordan of Texas checking her notes at impeach-
ment session. At rear are Jerome R. Waldie, left, and
Don Edwards of California. All are Democrats.

many colleagues and consti
tuents had ascribed his
decision to potential political
advantage in his reform cam-
paign for Governor of Maryland.

His red-rimmed eyes convey-
ing emotion, Mr. Hogan said
that “for anyone to think that 1
this decision could be made on;
a political basis with so much
at stake is something that I
personally resent.”

Moments later, he described
what, in his view, was at
stake. Referring to the Presi-
dent’s discovery on March 21
of last year that money had
been paid to Watergate bur-
glars and that more was being
demanded, Mr. Hogan, his
voice rising, said:

“The thing that is so ap-
palling to me is that the Presi-
dent, when this whole idea was
suggested to him, didn’t in
righteous indignation rise up
and say — ‘Get out of here. You
are in the office of the Presi-
dent of the United States. How
can you talk abodt blackmail
and bribery and keeping wit-
nesses silent? This is the Presi-
dency of the United States’—
and thrown them out of his
office and pick up the phone
and call the Department of
Justice and tell them there is
obstruction of justice going
on.”

Judging from the White
House tapes, Mr Hogan added,
* hiy President didn’t do that.”

' V •

1

THE RECORD ER, '

v

PAGE U

3rd Annual
Farm Conference

WASHINGTON - Sixth District
Representative M. Caldwell But-
ler announced today plans for his
third annual farm conference to
be held at the McCormick Farm
near Steeles Tavern on August
5.

The conference will begin at 10
a.m. and will conclude with a free
barbecue luncheon beginning at
12 noon. Butler announced that
Seventh District Congressman J.
Kenneth Robinson will again co-
sponsor the event with him. Also
included on the panel will be a
high level official of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and a re-
presentative from the House
Committee on Agriculture.

Rep. Butler indicated that the
conference will emphasize an
informal give and take session
between the sixth district farm-
ers and agricultural interests
present and the panel. An op-
portunity will also be provided,
however.

Representatives of the Soil Con-
servation Service, Farmers
Home Administration, State De-
partment of Agriculture and
Commerce, Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and VPPs Agri-
cultural Extension Service and
Agriculture Experiment Station
will be present to respond to
questions. They will also remain
afterwards in order to provide
personal assistance and answer
inquiries.

Cong. Butler noted that al-
though it is not essential, those
planning either to speak at the
conference or attend the barbe-
cue are urged to call or write
any of his offices and advise.

iciarv Panel Votes

\ *•

"Rep. Robert McClory’s motion to delay decision on im-
peachment 10 days if President Nixon agrees to turn
ver the 64 tape recordings involved in the Supreme Court

ecision:

Yes (11)

Mann (D-S.C.)
Hutchinson (R-Mich.)
McCiory ( R- 111.)
Smith (R-N.Y.)

Hogan (R-Md.)

Suiter (R-Va.)

Dennis (R-Ind.)
Froehlich (R-Wis.)
Moorehead (R-Calif.)
Maraziti (R-N.J.)
Latta (R-Ohio)

No (27)

Donohue (D-Mass.)

Brooks (D-Tex.)
Kastenmeier (D-Wis.)
Edwards (D-Calif.)

Hungate (D-Mo.)

Conyers (D-Mich.)

Eilberg (D-Pa.)

Waldie (D-Calif.)

Flowers (D-Ala.)

Sarbanes (D-Md.)

Seifcerling (D-Ohio)
Danielson (D-Calif.)

Drinan (D-Mass.)

Rangel (D-N.Y.)

Jordan (D-Tex.)
Thornton (D-Ark.)
Holtzman (D-N.Y.)
Owens (D-Utah)
Mezvinsky (D-lowa)
Rodino (D-N.J.)
Sandman (R-N.J.)
Railsback (R-lll.)
Wiggins ( R-Calif.)
Fish (R-N.Y.)
Mayre (R-lowa)
Cohen fR-Mass.)
Lott (R-Miss.)

By James K. W. Atherton — The Washington Post

■ v Butler (R-Va.) leans over to talk to Rep. James R. Mann (D-S.C.) at impeachment hearing.

I

type of evidence admissible During the arguments,
in a Senate trial. several Republican mem-

For opposite reasons, bers acknowledge that pro-
Nixon supporters on the impeachment forces on the
panel wanted the allega- committee had the votes to
txons fleshed out. report the article to the

A bipartisan group of House,
committee members who “You’ve got the votes, of
had played a key role in course, but somewhere
drafting the obstruction of down the line, you’ve got to
justice article met through- have the facts,” said
out the dinner hour last Dennis,
night to review their strate- Yesterday’s debate was
gy- slow in beginning, delayed .

They discussed, at some by last-minute drafting ses-
length, the possibility of sions and a proposal to post-
spelling out in further detail Pone an impeachment vote
l the specifics of the allega- while one la6t effort was
tions against Nixon. Ac- made to obtain additional
cording to Rep. William S. White House tape record-
Cohen, R/Maine, that ap- mgs from the president,
proach was rejected. Rep. Robert McClory, R-

“We decided against ni., who has said he will
making any substantive support an article of im-
changes ... we’ll role peachment dealing with the
with it as it reads now.” President’s refusal to sup-
Only Rep. Harold Froe- Ply evidence for the im-
lich, R-Wis., who earlier peachment probe, urged
signaled his willingness to that Nixon be allowed 10
support Article I if the days to turn over 64 addi-
wording problems could be tional tapes. On Wednesday
resolved, remained uneasy the President was ordered
about the lack of specifics. by the Supreme Court to
“I’m still left with my make those tapes available
concern intact and with a to Watergate special
hard decision ahead that I procecutor, Leon Jaworski.
don’t want to make,” Froe- McClory said the delay
lich said. should be granted only if

,, the President gave the com-

THE ATTACK by some mittee assurance by noon
Republicans on the lan- today that he would provide
guage of the impeachment the tapes, all of which have
article apparently caught also been subpoenaed by
Democratic supporters of the impeachment panel,
the measure by surprise. Even with this condition
They sought to counter attached, the postponement
the charges of unfairness to suggestion drew little sup-
the President by citing a Port from the committee,
litany of meetings, conver- McClory’s motion was re-
sations, actoons and fail- jected by 27-11 vote,
ures to act in an attempt to — :

make an oral case to sub- |
stantiate the impeachment
charge. - ••

Both sides in the debate
appeared as interested in
making their points with a
national television audience
as with one another.

proceeding under a very unique pro-
ceeding. Impeachment has offered us,
except for the case of Andrew John-
son, no guidelines, no precedents. It is
a fact, however, that the rules of evi- ^
dence do not apply as such. The rules f
that will be the rules that will apply
should this / impeachment proceeding &
move on into the House and then to
trial in the Senate, will be the rules
that the Senate will adopt. We do
know as a matter of fact from im- ^
peachment proceedings and the re- '
search that has been extensive, and I
— - all I need to do is recall to the
members of the House that the House
of Representatives has indeed im- ^
peached without any articles of im- »
peachment except merely to impeach,
and that on a mere motion, a privi- -v
leged motion of any member of the^ *
House, that the House could move to —
impeach. i

So that therefore this discussion and »
this issue requiring specificity in order
to lay the groundwork for articles of
impeachment seems to me to be beg-
ging of a question which I think has
long been settled.

What we do here is to proceed with
deliberations concerning the proposi-
tion that* certain articles of impeach-
ment be recommended by this commit-
tee to the House of Representatives. . .

. In the report that the committee will
then furnish the House of Representa-
tives, that information will be specifi-
cally included together with that —
counsel for the President as has been
properly pointed out by the gentleman
from Maine would be provided with all
of the information which is contained
in the summary of information which
details all of the specifics and that
prior to trial in the Senate, upon
proper request by counsel for the Pres-
ident, should it reach that ptage, dis-
covery and other proceedings, that
these materials would be then pro-

vided. And I believe that this affords
all of the opportunity for fairness in
this proceeding to insure that the
House of Representatives not act as a
trial body under the exacting rules of
evidence as we imow them because
this as a matter of fact, and all of us
are aware, I think, who have been long
wrestling with this question, * that the
House of Representatives is indeed not
the trial body by the body merely re-
commending articles of impeachment
even if they may be in the broadest
sense. . . .

Hutchinson. ... If I understand the
chairman’s remarks, it is that perhaps
this committee in working on articles
of impeachment so-called, that our re-
sponsibility is not now actually to per-
fect any articles but simply to decide
whether or not we should recommend
impeachment, and that those recom-
mendations could be included in a re-
port, and so on.

However, somewhere down the line
the House of Representatives has got
to draft some articles of impeachment,
which in the opinion of the House will
stand the legal test in the Senate and
if that is so, I wonder whether or not
— whether the House will look to any-
body else but this group in the Judici-
ary Committee to do that very task.

So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we
have that responsibility and we might
as well give our attention to those
problems right now.

Chairman. I do not want to take
more time except that I must correct
the gentleman from Michigan who I
am sure would want me to set the rec-
ord straight, does not want to misun-
derstand me. I did not state that we
should not perfect the articles. What I
merely stated was a legal proposition
that in impeachment proceedings,
there is no requirement in fact that
the articles be specifically set out.
That is all that I stated.

f teinif

TEST VOTE : 27-11

Impeachment
Charge Upheld

By Walter Taylor
and Martha Angle

Star-News Staff Writers

In what could be a test vote of im-
peachment sentiment, the House Ju-
diciary Committee late last night re-
jected, 27 to 11, an effort to delete a
portion of a charge against Presi-
dent Nixon.

Six Republicans voted against the
effort, part of an apparent strategy
by GOP members still loyal to the
President to delay a vote on im-
peachment. When a vote comes on
the full charge against the Presi-
dent — an accusation of obstruction
of justice in the Watergate probe —
it is expected to pass by the same 3-
1 margin.

The vote last night came on a mo-
tion by Rep. Charles W. San dman
Jr., R-N.J., who sought to strike one
of nine allegations — that the Presi-
dent made ‘‘false and misleading
statements” to Watergate investiga-
tors — from a general charge that
Nixon interferred with the cr iminal

investigation of the 1972 break-in at
the Democratic National Committee
headquarters at the Watergate.

The vote climaxed more than 12
hours of debate, in which the Presi-
dent’s defenders on the committee
sought to delay a vote on the full
charge by arguing that it was too
vague.

AT ONE point during the heated de-
bate, Sandman was warned by Chair-
man Peter W. Rodino Jr., D-N.J., that
“parliamentary maneuvers to delay
only tell the American people that we
are afraid to face the issues.”

A VOTE on the obstruction article
is expected sometime today, after
which the committee is to move on
to consideration of a second broad
charge — that Nixon abused the
powers and authority of his high of-
fice. Today’s debate will be tele-
vised on ABC-TV (Channel 7).

See IMPEACHMENT, A-«

A-6

Saturday, July 27, 1974

IMPEACHMENT

Continued from A-l

All 21 Democrats and six
Republicans on the panel
have committed themselves
or are seen as leaning to-
ward a vote for impeach-
ment on at least one of the
two articles.

Approval of any one arti-
cle would assure a commit-
tee recommendation that
Nixori be impeached by the
House and brought to rrial
in the Senate for constitu-
tional “high crimes and
misdemeanors.”

Continuation of debate on
the first article late into the
evening yesterday came
after a decision by im-
peachment advocates that
there would be no conces-
sion to objections from the
Sandman-Wiggins group
that the impeachment
charges were too vague.

Rep. Jack Brooks of
Texas, a key Democratic
strategist, said, “They can
keep talking — but it isn’t
going to help.”

THE PROPOSED ob-
struction of justice article
charges:

“In his conduct on the of-
fice of President of the
'United States, Richard M.
Nixon, in violation of his
constitutional oath faithful-
ly to execute the office of
President of the United
States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect
and. defend the Constitution
of the United States, and in
violation of his constitution-
al duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed,
has prevented, obstructed
and impeded the adminis-
tration of justice . .

Other proposed specific
charges are that the Presi-
dent withheld evidence, ap-
proved and condoned false
grand jury statements, ap-
proved payment of “hush
money” to Watergate de-
fendants and lied to Ameri-
can people about involve-
ment of the White House
and his re-election commit-
tee in the scandal.

DURING a full and ex-
hausting day of debate,
much of it conducted in dry
legal terms, Republicans
committed to Nixon on the
first impeachment article
argued that it was too
vague and unsubstantiated
by direct evidence.

A lack of specificity, they
said, threatened the Presi-
dent’s constitutionally guar-
anteed right to know the na-
ture of the charges against
him — and the evidence
buttressing those charges.

“Does the President have
any less rights . . . than a
defendent in a criminal pro-
ceeding?” demanded Rep.
Charles W. Sandman, Jr.,

R-N.J. I . . ,

“It’s not constitutional,
it’s not fair,” assert Rep.
David W. Dennis, R-Ind.
“Just because we’re a
congressional committee
doesn’t mean you can tear
the constitution apart, which
is what you want to do.”
‘'We pay tribute to the
Constitution,” said Rep.
Charles E. Wiggins, R-
Calif. who has emerged in
recent weeks as a spokes-
man for anti-impeachment
forces on the committee.
“Now is the time to put up
or shut up.”

REP. PAUL Sarbanes, D-
Md., selected by Chairman
Peter W. Rodino Jr., to
manage the impeachment
article through yesterday’s
debate, countered the
Republican argument by
saying that behind each
specification was not one or
two isolated events, but a
“pattern of conduct” that
could not be explained in a
simple sentence or two. The
evidence of the alleged
wrong doing, he said, would
fill “volumes.”

And other Democrats re-
turned the fire.

“I can give you explana-
tions, but I can’t give you
understanding,” said Rep.
William Hungate, D-Mo.,
who accused the Nixon
loyalists of fraudently rais-
ing the constitutional ques-
tion.

If an elephant were to
walk into the .committee
room, he suggested, some
members of the panel would
argue that the animal
“could be a mouse with a
glandular condition.”

The Nixon loyalists
“know what we are say-
ing,” he said.

Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman,
D-N.Y., characterized the
Republican arguments as a
“phony issue.”

OTHER committee
Democrats noted that the
evidence behind the speci-
fications in the impeach-
ment charge would be in-
cluded in the report that
will accompany the article
to the House.

Moreover, they noted,
Nixon lawyer James D. St.
Clair, was present during
the panel’s secret fact-find-
ing hearings and already
was fully familiar with the
charges and the evidence
against the President.

The committee received
conflicting advice on the
issue from its lawyers.

Special counsel John M.
Doar, who has called for
Nixon’s impeachment, and
associate counsel Albert E.
Jenner, who was ousted this
week as chief Republican
counsel for his pro-im-
peachment views, said the
draft article satisfied legal
requirements for such a
charge.

But Samuel Garrison HI,
named earlier this week to
replace Jenner as GOP
counsel, said that historical
precedent required that the
impeachment charge be
more specific.

ALTHOUGH the hours of
debate had the sound of a
parliamentary wrangle,
important defense and
prosecution tactics were at
the root of the dispute.

Impeachment advocates
sought to keep the charges
vague and general, fearing
that too much specificity
could limit the amount and

V :

By James Kf. W. Atherton — The Washlngtoii Post

Rep. Robert McClory (R-Ill.) debates impeachment issue as Rep. Edward Hutchinson listens.

Saturday, July 27, 1974

THE WASHINGTON POST

\

Excerpts From Judiciary
Panel’s Impeachment Debate

By James K. W. Atherton — The Washington Post

Rep. Harold D. Donohue (D-Mass.) and Chairman Rodino as yesterday’s Judiciary Committee session got under way.

Following the defeat of a motion
by Rep. Robert McClory (R-Ill.) to
delay a vote on impeachment pending
an appeal to President Nixon for more
tape recordings , reading of proposed
articles of impeachment was begun.
At this point , Rep. Paul S. Sarbanes
(D-Md.) offered a substitute for
Article I. Following are excerpts from
debate on that substitute:

Hutchinson. ... I want to express
my opposition to the substitute as of-
fered ... I am very critical of the sub-
stitute and its drafting in that it does
not set forth with specific detail the
exact incidents upon which any crimi-
nal indictment would have to lay.

It seems to me as though in writing
an article of impeachment in this gen-
eral language, that you leave the de-
fendant or the respondent or whatever
it is that we call him, grasping around
trying to find out specifically what it
is that he is charged with, what he has
to answer to.

This is just a lot of generalities. You
do not set forth any specific incidents.
You do not — you do not — and I think
that — I think it is fatal, fatal on that
account.

I also raise just by way of illustra-
tion here another point and I won't go
through it all, but your first two para-
graphs here, I am referring to para-
graphs numbered 1 and 2, you say,
“making false and misleading state-
ments to lawfully authorized investiga-
tive officers and employees of the
United States.” It would seem to me as
though you ought to at least allege
that those were made to them in the
course of an investigation. If they were
made in an off-duty status or some-
thing of that sort, it would seem to me,
in that respect to be fatal, or rather,
defective. . . .

Railsback. Mr. Sarbanes, I am won-
dering if it is your intent in drafting
this article to try to limit the allega-
tions to matters that include the Presi-
dent himself either in respect to
knowledge that he had or participation
that he entered into rather than to in
any way try to impute criminal respon-
sibility to him for acts of misconduct
on the part of his subordinates that he
had no knowledge of. In other words,
are we talking about — are these vari-
ous allegations meant to apply to the
President himself and either knowl-
edge that he had or involvement that
he had in these various acts tfyat you
have enumerated?

Sarbanes. If the acts of his subordi-
nates were in furtherance of his pol-
icy, and that is the language set forth
in Prag r aph 2 of the article, then those
acts would be shown under the head-
ings provided for means. Those acts
would have been carried out by those
subordinates and agents in furtherance
of such policy. The policy, of course, is
the one outlined in Paragraph 2 of the
proposed article.

Railsback. It would have to be.
would it not, a policy that— a policy
that would be a specific policy of his,
not on interference but based on some

facts or information?

~ . — .... — • -

sar Danes. Weil, the president coma
establish a policy with respect to this
cover-up which his agents were gener-
ally implementing.

Railsback. But that would have to be
a specific —

Sarbanes. Implementation of that
policy by the agents could be brought
forth in support of the allegations of
this article.

Railsback. But it would have to be a
specific policy and nothing that we are
inferring from other actions that have
taken place, am I correct?

Sarbanes. Well, there would have to
be a policy of the President.

Now, you could have a policy that he
had established which he wished to
have implemented. You could have
that policy subsequently implemented
by his close subordinates or his agents.

Railsback. Let me — let me perhaps
express to you my concerns and I
think the concerns of others. Some of
us do net believe in the so-called Madi-
son concept by which youhold respon-
***

Wiggins. An article of impeachment
sible a superior for acts of misconduct
committed by subordinates.

This— well, why don’t you respond to
that, if you can. 1 Z71

Sarbanes. Well, as I understand tne
wording of tfois language, it would
not rear*h to the limits of the Madison
superintendency theory —

Railsback. All right.

Sarbanes. — because that theory
would reach to the point of — could
reach to the point, I think at least, of
acts of subordinates not only that the
President did not have any knowledge *
of but that were not in implementation

of a policy of the President

is no less a pleading than any other
pleading in a similar criminal case,
and its function is to give fair notice to
the person charged so that he may
have an opportunity to defend against
that argument. It must not only be le-
gally sufficient, but in the context of a
panel such as this, we must be satis-
fied that the evidence justifies an oth-
erwise legally sufifeient argument of
impeachment. It is with that in mind
that I am going to ask the author of
the proposed article a series of ques-
tions, and I shall yield, of course, for
the purpose of your answer.

The thrust of Article 1 is to charge
the President with an obstruction of
justice, as I understand it. Is it your
intent by your article to charge the
President with the substantive crime
of obstruction of justice, the substan-
tive crime of obstruction of justice?

Sarbanes. In a criminal sense, no it
would not be the intention that the ar-
ticle would be specifically, that the
content of this article would be specifi-
cally defined in criminal terms, in
terms of the criminal offense and in •
terms of what would be required ac-
cordingly in a criminal trial.

Wiggins. All right. I understand.
Sarbanes. An impeachable offense, I
do not believe, is coincidental with a
criminal offense. I think that is a view
generally accepted by the members of
this committee, and this article is
drawn on that premise.

wwins All right, that being the
premise, I think the answer to the next
two questions is no. And if you wou Id
just answer no rather than explain it,
it would preserve rny time .

Ts it vour intent by this araci
charge the President with the substan-
tive crime of conspiracy to obstruc
liifttice?

Sarbanes. Again, if you are using
, that term in a criminal , sense, the an-
swer would be no.

Wiggins. Is it your intention —
Sarbanes. But that does not mean
that concepts pertaining to conspira-
cies would not be pertinent in the ap-
plication of this article.

Wiggins. All right. Is it your inten-
tion by this article to charge the Presi-
dent with the substantive offense de-
nouced in Section 1510, that is the in-
terference with properly constituted
investigative agencies?

Sarbanes . . . When the gentleman
uses the phrase “substantive offense,”
of course, impeachable offenses are
substantive. Now, if that phrase is
meant again as I said earlier, to be
coincident with a criminal offense —
Wiggins. That is my question.
Sarbanes. As defined in the criminal
code, then this is not meant to be coin-
cidental with a criminal offense, al-
though concepts that may pertain in
that area may also pertain here . . .

Wiggins. ... It appears to be your
answer that the article is not premised
necessarily upon violation of the
criminal law.

Sarbanes. That is correct. It does not
preclude such violations, but it is not
premised and not limited to them.

Wiggins. . . . Now, the heart of this
matter is that the President made it
his policy to obstruct justice and to in-
terfere with investigations. Would you
please explain to this member of the
committee and to the other members,
when, and in what respect, and how
4id the President declare that policy?
And I wish the gentleman would be
rather specific, since it is the heart of
the allegation?

Sarbanes. Well, of course the means
by which this policy has been done are
the ones that are set out subsequent to
the second paragraph.

Wiggins. If the gentleman could con-
fine himself to the question first, when
was the policy declared?

Sarbanes. In 1 through 9. Well, the
policy relates back to June 17, 1972,
and prior thereto, agents of the com-
mittee committed illegal entry and it
then goes on and says subsequent there-
to Richard M. Nixon, using the pow-
ers of his high office, made it his pol-
icy, and in furtherance of such policy
did act directly —

' Wiggins. I can read the article, but I
think it is rather important to all of us
that we know from you, as the author
of that article, exactly when this policy
was declared, and I hope you will tell
us.

Sarbanes. Well, I think there was
varying factual matters that a member
can draw conclusions in his own mind.

Wiggins. What about yourself ^sRhe
author of the article?

Sarbanes. As to when that policy
was established, and there are differ-
ent stages in this matter. There is evi-
dence with respect to the policy having
been established immediately after the
break-m. or virtually immediately af-
ter the break-in. There is other evi-
dence that pertains more specifically
to the period of March and April of
1973. The wording of this article would
encompass that full time period, and I
think the language is brpad enough to
carry with it the —

Wiggins. But your intent is not
broad. I would like your intent to be
specific, at least in your answer to me.
We are talking about a policy of the
President of the United States, which
is the heart of your allegation, and the
answer should not be confused. It
ought to be specific.

When was the policy declared, and if
I get an answer to that, I would like to
know in what manner it was declared.
Now, that is not asking too much.

Sarbanes. Well, I want to distinguish
two things. One is the scope of the ar-
ticle, which I think encompasses the
entire period or any part of it, if a pol-
icy was established at any point
through that period . . .

Sandman. Is it your understanding
of the law that the articles of impeach-
ment must be specific, and in order to
meet the due process clause of the
Constitution?

Sarbanes. I believe that this article
that is presented to you meets the law
of impeachment with respect to the
problem that you raise.

Sandman. I did not ask that. I asked
do you understand the law to say that
an article of impeachment must be
specific?

Sarbanes. In the same sense that a
criminal indictment must be specific?

cio not believe that the standards
which Efovern the specificity of a crimi-
nal indictment are applicable to an ar-
ticle of impeachment, if that is the
thrust of the gentleman’s question.

Sandman. Well, now, do you no;t be-
lieve that under the due process clause
of the Constitution that every individ-
ual, including the President, is entitled
to due notice of what he is charged
for? Do you believe that?

Sarbanes. I think this article does
provide due notice.

Sandman. You are not answering my
question.

Sarbanes. Well, I think I am answer-
ing your question.

Sandman. Well, let me ask you this,
then. As I see this, you have about
twenty different charges here, all on
one piece of paper, and not one of
them specific. The gentleman from
California has asked you for a date,
for example, on Charge 1 apd 2. No
date. You say that he withheld rele-
vant material. When and how?

Is he not entitled to know that? How
does he answer such a charge? This
s not due process. Due process —

Sarbanes. I would point out to the
gentleman from New Jersey that the
President’s counsel entered this com-
mittee room at the very moment that
members of this committee entered
the room and began to receive the
presentation of information, and that
he stayed in this room —

Sandman. I do not yield any further.
Sarbanes. — throughout that process.
Sandman. I do not yield any further
for those kinds of speeches. I want an-
swers, and this is what I am entitled
to. This is a charge against the Presi-
dent of the United States, why he
should be tried to be thrown out Of of-
fice, and that is what it is for. For 1dm
to be duly noticed of what you ai?
charging him, in my judgment, he is
entitled to know specifically what he
did wrong, and how does he gather
that from what you say here?

Sarbanes. My response to the gentle-
man is that the article sets out the
means. The President’s counsel has
been here throughout the proceedings
and is aware of the material that was
presented to us, and that this article,
in comparison — TfcsST 1/ < 27/'7 c f
Sandman. One last question. 'One
last question, and you can answer.

Do you or do you not believe, and
you can say yes or no, that the Presi-
dent is entitled to know in the articles
of impeachment specifically, specifi-
cally on what day he did that thing
which vou say he should be removed
from office? Is he entitled to know
that, and in an article of impeachment,
not by virtue of the fact that his coun-
sel was here?

Sarbanes. I do not believe that the
article of impeachment is going to con-
‘ i a ‘ . i j Sj^ec.. c facts which go to
support the article. If it were to do
.na t, the article of impeachment would
be 18 volumes, or whatever the num-
ber of volumes, are pertinent to place
into it all of the specific information.

Sandman. I do not think it has to say
that at all. But, I think it has to say
that on a certain day he did something
which is illegal, thus-and-so. You can
say that in a simple sentence, but you
are not saying that here. And, in fact,
there is plenty of law on this point,
and it says that these things shall not
be general, these things shall not be
general. They shall be specific. This
has been the case of every impeach-
ment trial tried in the United States,
all the way up to the last one in 1936.
You do not dispute that, do you?

Sarbanes. I do dispute that. If the
gentleman is talking or referring back
to criminal indictments, then the
thrust of the gentleman’s point has
some merit, but I do dispute it when
he shifts it to the law of impeachment.

It is not a correct statement of the law
of impeachment.

Sandman. I am talking about the im-
peachment of Justice Ritter. That was

an impeachment.

• *

Danielson. . . Apropos of the debate
as to specificity as to time, I should
like to point out that although this is
not a criminal prosecution there is am-
ple precedent in our federal criminal
procedural laws to established that
the only point, the only necessity for
establishing a date in an indictment,
which this is analagous to, is to bring
the activity complained of within the
period of the statute of limitations.
Here since the pleadings would indi-
cate that on June 17, 1972, arid prior
thereto, but obviously in its context,
within the period of time that Richard

Nixon has served as the President of
the United States, and, therefore,
clearly within the period of limitations
for this proceeding, these events did
take place, and the policies were estab-
lished.

The only other requirement in an ac-
cusatory pleading, which' a bill of im-
peachment will be, as for specificity on
facts, is that the facts be described
w th sufficient particularity so that the
person charged or accused can be
aware of the offenses with which he is
charged, and thereby enabled to pre-
pare his defense.

Secondly, that acquittal or convic-
tion on that charge of factual informa-
tion will serve as a bar to any subse-
quent prosecution.

Now, I respectfully submit that the
pleading before us or proposed plead-
ing as submitted by Mr. Sarbanes does
clearly establish as to time that this
policy was established, on June 17,
1972, and prior thereto, but within the
term of office of President Richard N.
Nixon, and therefore, as to time, this is
sufficiently specific.

Number two, as to the facts, I would
respectfully submit that they are al-
leged with great particularity, and suf-
ficiently enable the President to pre-
pare his defense, and to have an ac-
quittal or a conviction serve as a bar
to a subsequent prosecution, thereby
avoiding the constitutional ban against
double jeopardy.

Lastly, I would like to point out that
this document, a bill of particulars, is
not an indictment, and criminal law,
the precedents do not control. They
are valuable as an analogy, but this
need not be as specific as an indict-
ment in a criminal case.

Moreover, the added information
which counsel for the President may
want in the nature of time, and in the
nature of dates, places, particulars on
facts, can be reached by him in the
event this goes to trial in the Senate
through his bringing a motion for a
bill of particulars, or a motion to make
more definite and certain, and it is not
an attack upon the validity of this pro-
posed Article of Impeachment. . . .

Sandman. Would the gentleman
yield?

Danielson. I will be delighted to
yield.

Sandman. Now, you have made a
point that this is not necessarily the
same as a criminal indictment.
Danielson. That is correct.

Sandman. All right now, even if we
were to agree on that point, which I do .
not altogether, but let us assume we
do, does the President have any rights
pertaining to due process?

Danielson. No, he does not.

Sandman. As would a common crimi-
nal in an indictment?

Danielson. He does not have any less
right, and as a matter of fact, in this
proceeding he has enjoyed much
greater rights.

Sandman. All right, so he is entitled
to due process?

Danielson. This is my time, Mr.
Sandman. I will point out that the
President has been present and partici-
pated in these proceedings since the
very first hour that we have met.

Danielson. I was about, I would say
to the gentleman from New Jersey, I
was about to yield to my colleague
from California, Mr. Edwards.

Edwards. Thank you. I would like to
direct a question to Mr. Danielson.

Danielson. I will yield for the ques-
tion.

Edwards. Thank you. The purpose,
of course, is to always be fair in an in-
dictment, and that is why it should be
as exact as possible. Do you think that
the President and his attorney can un-
derstand in .great particularity exactly
the charges, the specific events that
this Bill of Impeachment refers to?

Danielson. Well, at the risk of sound-
ing frivolous, . I would state anyone
who is in charge of the complicated
business of this nation certainly would
be able to understand the intendments
of this proposed Article of Impeach-
ment. But, if under some happenstance
this is not deemed clear to the person
accused, he still will have the remedy
of asking for a bill of particulars or
make a motion for greater detail and
specificity of these facts at an appro-
priate time. Yes, due process is well
served, and fairness has been pre-
served in these proceedings.

At this point the committee recessed
for lunch and resumed debate at 3:#0

p.m.

Mr. Maraziti. I was amazed to find —
to hear the gentleman from Maryland
explain why it is not necessary to de-
tail the facts and one argument given
is that th§ counsel for the President
was present in the room when these
matters were being discussed.

That is not a satisfactory disposition
of the matter. It reminds me of coun-
sel for a defendant appearing in a
magistrate’s court, a presentation
made of an hour or two, then the pros-
ecutor of the county — a very general
indictment — it is not sufficient for the
prosecutor of the county to say I do
not have to specify because the coun-
sel for the defendant attended the pre-
liminary examination. ./--J

And the President — the knowledge
of the counsel is not the knowledge of
the President. We do not know
whether the counsel for the President
that appeared here is going to be asso-
ciate counsel or one of a number of
counsel or whether there will be dif-
ferent counsel.

Now, he makes a point of once the
resolution or the articles get to the
floor they can be justified, amended,
and so on. That may be so. But I think
it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, mem-
bers qf this committee, for us to, the
members here and now, before we vote
for or against a particular article, to
know the time and place and names, to
know all the eveifts.

Now, I have done some legal re-
search during the noon recess because
it was represented that the law that
pertains to indictments does not nec-
essarily apply to impeachment proce-
edings. And I found that from tfae very
beginning, when impeachment proce-
edings were instituted in 1798, right
down to the present time, the last im-
peachment, of Judge Ritter in 1936, that
every respondent charged has been fac-
ed with articles of impeachment that
alleged specifics, and there is a reas-
on for it. There is a reason for it. So
that he who is charged, and this is fun-
damental to Anglo-Saxon law, that he
who is charged must know on what
particular charge or points he must de-
fend himself. It is not necessary for
him to go over the tremendous
amounts of information that we have
here and say, well, maybe they will ac-
cuse me on this and maybe on that.
And it is very simple, Mr. Chairman,
because the gentleman from Maryland
began to spec ify c ertain times, places
and events.

Now, if that is it, if that is what the
charge is, simply include it in the arti-
cles of impeachment . . . . .

* * 558 living

Sandmah. I would like to start with
one simple question. I t certainly de-
serves a simple answer. I have just
heard a rehash of all of the excerpt^
from all of the tapes. My question, to
the gentleman from Maryland, who
just presented those, is this a new
document that you submitted? Or what
was your purpose?

Sarbanes. No. I am recounting back
over the transcripts of the tapes, per-
tinent portions of that conversation.

Sandman. Well, if it is not a new
document then we are back to where
we started. Why are you resisting the
fact that this should be in the articles
of impeachment? Is not the Congress
entitled to know what they are going
to vote on when it gets to them?'
Should they not know when it hap-
pened and how it happened? Should
this not be in the articles? ... A brief
answer from the gentleman from Mary-
land, if he has one.

Sarbanes. I responded to that ques-
tion this morning when the gentleman
said it and —

Sandman. You have not given any
answer at all.

Sarjbanes. And I said at that time if
we were to bring into the articles all
the factual material which underpins
them we would have to have articles
that ran into volumes and volumes.

Sandman. Now, that is not so.

Sarbanes. It is so.

Sandman. And you know it is not so.

Railsback. Will you yield?

Sandman. In a moment I will yield.
You know that is not so any more
than it is an indictmenh You do not
need the whole brief in an indictment
and I do not want to be confused again
by saying this is an indictment. It is
not. But the common criminal case
has no more rights than the President
of the United States in an impeach-
ment case. This is what I have said.
Railsback. Would you yield?
Sandman. No, I won’t yield. I am
not finished.

Now, the important thing here is
why isn’t the President entitled to this
kind of simple explanation? It can be
in a single sentence. We don’t have
to go through the speech that you
made. All you have to say on any one
of your articles, a very simple sen-
tence, on such and such a date the
President did contrary to the law a
simple act. That is all you have to say.
Why won’t you say it?

Danielson. Will the N gentleman
yield? j

Sandman. I want him to answer.
Sarbanes. Will the gentleman yield?
Sandman. Sure, a simple answer.
Sarbanes. Behind each of those al-
legations lies an extensive pattern of
conduct. That will be spelled out fac-
tually and will be —

Sandman. That is —

Sarbanes. If the gentleman will let
me finish, I am endeavoring as best I
can to respond to his question.
Sandman. All right. Go ahead.
Sarbanes. And that pattern of con-
duct will be spelled out in the report
that accompanies the articles. But
there is not one isolated incident that
rests behind each of these allegations.
There is a course of conduct extending
over a period of time involving a great
number of —

Sandman. I am not going to yield
any further. It is my time you are
using up. I am not going to yield any
further for that kind of an answer.
You are entitled to your proof. No
one said that you aren’t. You are en-
titled to as many articles as you can
get the Democrats and some Republi-
cans to agfee upon. And no one says
that you are not entitled to that. But
to each of these, my friend, the law
from the beginning of this country up
to the last impeachment in 1936 says,
whether you like it or not, it has to be
specific and this is not specific.

* * *

Chairman. The Chair would like to
address a question to counsel and staff
which has had the whole matter before
it for a period of time, citing the prece-
dents and the history of impeachment,
as to whether or not there is a re-
quirement that there be specificity in
the preparation of Articles for Im-
peachment? I address that to our coun-
sel.

Doar. Mr. Chairman, in my judg-
ment it is not necessary to be totally
specific, and I think this Article of
Impeachment meets the test of speci-
ficity. As the congressman from Mary-
land said, there will be a report sub-
mitted to the Congress with respect to
this article, if the committee chooses to

vote on this article, and behind that
report will be the summary of informa-
tion, as well as all of the material that
was presented to this committee.

Prior to trial in the Senate, the coun-
sel for the President is entitled to
make demands for specificity through
perhaps a motion similar to a bill of
particulars, and so that all of those
details may be spelled out.

But, from the standpoint of thi^
article, my judgment is firmly and with
conviction that this meets the tests?
that have been established under the
procedures. ...

Chairman. I address the same ques-
tion to Mr. Garrison.

Garrison. Mr. Chairman, I have not
frankly spent a great deal of time
researching this question. But, I would
say that while it may very well not be
a requirement of the law, it 'clearly
can be said to be the uniform practice
of the past to have a considerable de-
gree of specificity in the articles, and
I would cite the members of the com-
mittee to a publication of this commit-
tee of October of 1973 entitled Im-
peachment, Selected Materials, and
beginning on page 125 and concluding
on page 202. Every Article of Impeach-*
ment which has been tried in the Sen-
ate is set forth, and I would be less
than frank, Mr. Chairman, if I did not
suggest that a simple reading of those
articles would suggest an enormous
amount of factual detail. ...

Chairman. I would like to Address,
the same question to Mr. Jenner. . . .

Jenner. An article of impeachment
as of the present day is to be viewed
in the light of the progress made in
the field of criminal procedure by this
Congress and by the progress made
under the Enabling Act by the Advi-
sory Committees of the United States
Supreme Court adopting the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

And secondly ... it is no longer
necessary to specify either in civil or
criminal complaints a range of speci-
ficity that acompanied the needs of a
past era. And all that is neessary under
the cases is that the bill, the complaint,'
and I respectfully suggest the Articles
of Impeachment give but what is called
notice, or notice pleading, and that is
in itself sufficient.

Under the Federal rules of Criminal
Procedure, under the discovery pro-
visions, the President may obtain all
of the 38 books, all of the summaries,
all of the materials that are before
this committee. . .

* * *

Butler. I share the concern raised
by the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Sandmhn, and I would like, if I
may, to return to our question of Mr.
Jenner, if you could answer a few
more questions for me. We all really
have so much information that it is
not sufficient to say to the counsel
for the President that he is entitled to
all of those 38 books, because we
really have so much that we do not
have any. I am concerned that the
President is entitled to know what
facts are going to be deduced against
him. So my question is this: based on
your view of the precedents, and your
experience, is the President entitled
to know at some point prior to trial
just exactly what facts will be educed
against him?

Jenner. I think in an impeachritefi#
proceeding that he is so entitled.

Butler. Now, how would counsel for
the President go about getting that
information if it were not spelled out
specifically in the Articles of Impeach-
ment?

Hogan. If I could, if, I could further
ask counsel, either Mil Doar, Mr. Jen-
ner, or Mr. Garrison, would it be pc$ :
sibel for Mr. St. Clair to not request
sible for Mr. St. Clair to not request
ficity, and wait until the time of tri^l
in the Senate, and then move to dis-
miss the impeachment on the grounds
that it is not specific?

Jenner. He may do that, Mr Hogan,
at the greatest possible, grave risk qi
waiting until particular time.

Hogan. Except as a practical matter,
he has all of the material already.

Jenner. That is correct, sir. And the
chief justice in presiding and ruling
upon that motion would have that
mind.

Hogan. But the real thrust of my
question is would he prevail in offqf-
ing that motion for, in effect, a dir^
ected verdict?

Jenner. I think not, sir, under the
present modern practice. yv

See TRANSCRIPT, A13* Col. 1 i_

TRANSCRIPT, From A12

Jenner. In the proceedings that take
place prior to trial he is entitled 1 9
ask for and receive virtually without
subpoena, without process, but by re-
quest, under supervision of the Chief
Justice, who will perform the function
of the presiding judge, the production
of all materials in the possession of
this Committee bearing upon the is J
sues presented by the Article of Im-
peachment. Under the present prac-
tice, especially in civil cases, but sub-
stantially so also in criminal cases;
under the criminal rules, and multidis j
trict panel manual, counsel are re-
quired in criminal cases, subject to
the Fifth Amendment, of course, and
Fifth Amendment rights, to all of the
material that bears upon the issues in
the case . . .

Butler. ... Is the President also
entitled to know sufficiently in ad-
vance of the trial the facts that may
be educed in order to prepare a de-
fense so it cannot come to him at the
last moment?

Jenner. I think he is entitled to that,
Congressman Butler. But he is not
entitled to it by way of a specific
pleading. He is entitled to know, and,
he will receive under the modern prac-
tice, the facts, which I assume you
mean evidence, all bearing upon the
issue stated in the Bill of Impeach;
ment.

Butler. Whether he gets them suffi-
ciently in advance is depending on
whether he asks the question soon
enough?

Jenner. Well, that will depend on
the President’s counsel, of course. But,
Mr. St. Clair has demonstrated here
that he is one of the most able law-
yers in America. He is experienced
both in the civil and criminal field,
and we anticipate, and I think that
per adventure, that he will proceed
to do so, sir . . .

Rangel. I wonder as we try to talk
about specifics so that the President
would be in a better position to defend
himself whether we really take into
consideration that the mandate of this
committtee is to report to the House of
Representatives and it seems to me
that if we got bogged down with spe-
cifics before the House of Representa-
tives has worked its will, that perhaps
We would not give the general recom-
mendation to the House that it right-
fully deserves. It is not our constitu-
tional responsibility to impeach the
President but merely to report to the
House. So that it seems to me that we
should not be talking about specifics
but give them maximum amount of in-
formation to the House of Representa-
tives so that they can ddal with the
problem constitutionally

Railsback. Mr. Doar, I wonder if I
could direct a question to you. I won-
der if in past impeachment cases it has
not been the procedure that the Judici-
ary Committee has recommended and
then on some occasions the House of
Representatives itself has formally
drafted and prepared articles of im-
peachment which were then submitted
to the Senate. In other words, it is my
recollection that there may have been
cases where th^ House Judiciary Com-
mittee simply made a recommendation
that the House itself had the responsi-
bility of drafting and adopting the arti-
cles of impeachment based on the rec-
ommendation and I wonder if we
couldn’t do it that way. What is t your
feeling about that?

Doar. My understanding is that has
been the past practice.

Chairman Rodino. Before we pro-
ceed, the chair would like to state
some propositions.

First of all, we do know that we are

'YOU DONT FEEL HAPPY '

A Committee Votes

By Mary McGrory

Star-News Staff Writer

The words that heralded the fatal roll-
calls were pedestrian. At 7 p.m.. Chair-
man Peter Rodino said: “The question
is on the Sarbanes substitute.”

The question was really on Richard
Nixon’s fitness to continue in office. It
was answered in an atmosphere of
deepest melancholy.

The silence that fell on the room was
broken only by the call of the roll and
the click of cameras as photographers
huddled over the clerk, snapping the
tally as the names were called.

The “ayes” of the Democrats were
whispered rather than spoken. Barbara
Jordan, the handsome and eloquent
black congresswoman from Texas, had
her eyes fixed on the table. Rep. Ray
Thornton, one of the three southern
Democrats on the committee also was
looki ng down.

JAMES MANN of South Carolina, the
Democrat, who looks like a founding fa-
ther and had spoken like one during the
debate, sighed his “Aye.” He was the
architect of the first article of impeach-
ment. pe had moved between the
Republican reluctants and the Southern
Democrats carrying drafts and redrafts
of the charges against the President.

Edward Hutchinson of Michigan, the
ranking Republican, recorded his “no.”
resoundingly. It was all he could do for
Richard Nixon. He is ailing, he took no
part in the fight. He could only register
from time to time his disapproval of its
existence.

Two weeks ago in a Republican cau-
cus, he asked Tom Railsback of Illinois,
in tones of horror, “Do you mean to say
you would vote to impeach a Republican
president?”

Railsback, who has been equally
horrified at the prospect, responded, “I
See McGRORY, A-13

Continued from Page A-l.

would vote to impeach any
president who I thought was
subverting my govern-
ment.”

IT FELL to Railsback to
cast the first Republican
vote against the President.
Hamilton Fish of New York,
M. Caldwell Butler of Vir-
ginia, William Cohen of

Maine, predictably, softly
gave their verdict.

Only Harold Froehlich of
Wisconsin was a surprise.
The stillness in the room
was rippled with gasps
when through tight lips he
blurted his “aye.”

He had tried to get out of
it. During the hurly-burly of
the third day’s struggle
while Nixon’s friends were

taunting their opponents for
proof, Froehlich had threat-
ened to reconsider his
dread resolve. A few minor
changes he wanted were
made in the article. His es-
cape was cut off.

All 27 of them were taking
a leap in the dark. For the
Southern Democrats and
the Republicans it was an

act of conscience and cour-
age that could bring them
honor, but oblivion.

IN THE END, they re-
turned to the mood in which
they began, speaking of the
Constitution and their pain.
As the afternoon wore on,
Hutchinson began visiting
the Nixon loyalists, moving
among them as if in a hospi-
tal ward, patting shoulders,
pressing arms. They had
. done their best. But even
^Charles Sandman, of New
^Persey, a gifted heckler,
admitted by sundown there
was nothing more to be
said.

They began their good-
byes. William Hungate, the
Missouri Democrat who
provided comic relief,
apologized if his humor had
offended anyone, then quot-
ed from the piercing in-
scription on the Omaha
Beach memorial: “They en-
dured all, they suffered all
that mankind might know
freedom and inherit jus-
tice.”

Walter Flowers, Demo-
crat of Alabama, said som-
berly, “There is nothing to
gain, politically or other-
wise, from what I do here.”

He told his friends in Ala-
bama: “I have enough pain
for them and me.”

REPUBLICAN Hamilton
Fish told his friends in New
York that he would vote for
the article of impeachment
with “deep reluctance.”

And then they decided to
bring out what Cohen had
called in the rhetorical
phase of the proceedings,
“the sword in the temple.”
Mann, who had become
the leader of that mission to
the temple, spoke with his
usual gravity as the mem-
bers dispersed.

“You don’t like to be cor-
nered, but when you are,
and your conscience is with
you, you are comfortable.”
“You don’t feel exhilarat-
ed,” he added as he went
off to another drafting ses-
sion. “You don’t feel
happy.”

6 Republicans Join
Democrats to Pass

Obstruction Charge

ujasksftet- O

^^j3y Richard Lyons and William Chapman

Washington Post Staff Writers

The House Judiciary Committee took the momentous
step last night of recommending that the President of the
United States be impeached and removed from office.

The first such impeachment recommendation in more
than a century, it charges President Nixon with unlawful
activities that formed a ‘‘course of conduct or plan” to
obstruct the investigation of the Watergate break-in and
to cover up other unlawful activities.

The vote was 27 to 11, with 6 of the committee’s 17
Republicans joining all 21 Democrats in voting to send the
article to the House.

At least one other article accusing the President of
abuse of power is expected to be approved Monday when
the committee resumes.

But approval of a single article is all that is required
to send "the issue to the House. And approval of a single
article by a majority of the House is enough to impeach
the President and send the case to trial in the Senate,
which could remove Mr. Nixon from office by a two-thirds
vote.

The bipartisan support for the article adopted last
night makes impeachment by the House seem more than
likely. The majority included three conservative South-
ern Democrats and three conservative Republicans.

In San Clemente, Calif., White House press secretary
Ronald L. Ziegler said after the vote that Mr. Nixon
remains confident that the House will recognize he has
not committed an impeachable offense.

But Senate Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield said he
will meet Monday with Minority Leader Hugh Scot t to
launch formal Senate preparations for an impeachment
trial.

“The line of demarcation has been reached,” he said.

Most members of the Judiciary Committee cast their
votes in low, solemn tones and afterward spoke almost in
awe of what they had done.

“It’s a grave and sobering decision,” said Rep. Paul
Sarbanes (D-Md.), who had managed the debate on Article
I for the impeachment forces as an author of a substitute
article

“I don’t fee? very good about it,” said Rep. Tom Rails-
back (R-Ill.), one of the key Republicans who voted against
the President.

Some Republican opponents of impeachment were an-
gry. “It’s not otlly a bad day for the presidency, it’s a bad
day for American justice,” said Rep. Delbert Latta
(R-Ohio). He complained that the article of impeachment
did not contain enough specific allegations.

“We have weakened the hand of the President and the
220 million people he represents,” said Rep. Joseph
Maraziti (R-N.J.), one of Mr. Nixon’s most persistent sup-
porters.

Other anti-impeachment Republicans vowed to fight the
impeachment article when it comes to the House floor.
‘It’s only Round One,” said Rep. David W. Dennis (R-Ind )
‘‘There’!! be a good scramble in the House.”

Even those whose impeachment votes were never in
doubt voice.-* no sense of triumph. “I don’t want to talk
to anybody,” Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Tex.) said “It’s a
terrible thing to happen to anybody,” said Rep. Charles

B .. ^ an J el ®-N Y. - “r m not happy,” said Chairman Peter
w. Rodino (D-N.J.).

; .Just before the historic vote, Rep. Walter Flowers
(D-Ala.) revealed for the first time he had decided to vote

IMPEACH, From Ai

for impeachment. He said
that after weeks of search-
ing the facts and the Con-
stitution “it is clear to me
what I must do.” He said
some of his constituents
would feel hurt by his vote
against the President, but
he assured them that, “I
probably have enough pain
for both them and me.”

Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-
N.Y.) also disclosed he would
vote for impeachment. He
said he reached that point
“with deep reluctance,” but
added, “The evidence is
clear.”

It took two votes — one to
substitute the amended Sar-
banes version for the origi-
nal resolution and then one
to approve the impeachment
article. The vote ended at
. 7:05 p.m.

The article specified nine
categories of unlawful activ-^
ities that were allegedly
part of the cover-up.

“In all this,” the article
concluded, “Richard M.
Nixon has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as Pres-
ident and subversive of con-
stitutional government, to
the great prejudice of the
cause of law and justice and
to the manifest injury of the
people of the United States.

“Wherefore Richard M.
Nixon, by such conduct, war-
rants impeachment and trial

and removal from office.”

During the four days of
general debate and amend-
ing of the article , the princi-
pal witness was the absent

President himself. Time af-
ter time, committee 4 mem-
bers picked up transcripts
of taped presidential conver-
sations to read back the
President’s words.

And even more often they
would note a gap in the evi-
dence caused by the Presi-
dent’s refusal to comply
with committee subpoenas
that he turn over more
tapes.

The articles of impeach-
ment will go to the House
headed by a resolution
which in its present draft
form reads:

“Resolved, that Richard
M. Nixon, President of the
United States, is impeached
for high crimes and misde-
meanors, and that the fol-
lowing articles be exhibited
to the. Senate: . . ”

The impeachment inquiry
which began seven months
age was provoked prindi-
pally by Watergate, but
other issues covered by a
proposed Article II charging
abuse of power cause more
concern among sort** mem-
bers.

• Some Republicans are
most concerned about alle-
gations that Mr. Nixon mis-
used such sensitive agencies
as the Internal Revenue
Service and the Central In-
telligence Agency for politi-
cal purposes.

Others are most con-
cerned about Mr. Nixon’s
defiance of committee sub-
poenas, which, is now in-
cluded in Article II as a con-
tempt of Congress count,
but may be broken out into
a separate article. An at-
tempt may be made to offer
a fourth article on tax eva-
sion, but it is not expected
to be approved.

The obstruction of justice
article approved last night
accuses Mr. Nixon of mak-
ing false statements to in-
vestigators, withholding rel-
evant evidence, approving
or counseling perjury, inter-
fering with the Justice De-
partment’s investigation, ap-
proving payment of hush
money to Watergate defend-
ants, passing on information
about the investigation to
his aides who were suspects,
making false statements to
the American people about
White House involvement in
Watergate and causing de-
fendants to believe they
might receive clemency for
the silence. ^

The Democratic majority
and a few Republicans
spent the afternoon on na-
tional television reciting in-
stance after instance in
which they said Mr. Nixon
and his former top aides
withheld information on the
cover-up and tried to inter-
fere with various investiga-
tions.

The committee yesterday
rejected a half-dozen amend-
ments that would have de-
leted most of the nine para-

" graphs in Article I alleging
obstruction of justice.

It was a pro forma debate,
insisted upon by Rep. Flow-
ers who said the committee
had an obligation to build a
record describing the speci-
fic offenses committed by
Mr. Nixon and his aides:

One major amendment
was passed. It charged that
Mr. Nixon had personally
and through aides engaged
in a “course of conduct”
designed to obstruct investi-
gation of the cover-up. That
language replaced a charge,
considered more difficult to
prove, that Mr. Nixon had
formulated a specific
“policy” to obstruct justice.*
Another . amendment add-
ed “congressional commit-
tees” to the list of organiza-
tions whose investigations
Mr. Nixon was alleged to
have interfered with.

The sharp debate on evi
dence yesterday was. in con-
trast to the rambling argu-
ments that,.. characterized.
Friday’s committee delibera-
tions.

The Republican minority
Friday demanded more
specific facts in the charges
lodged against Mr. Nixon
in Article I. Unprepared,
the Democrats and a few Re-
publicans tried to contend
the impeachment article
didn’t need specfic citations
of evidence to back it up.

But yesterday the Demo- :
crats were prepared in depth
to give specific reasons Mr.
Nixon should be impeached
for obstructing justice in the
Watergate cover-up. Differ-
ent members had been as-
signed the task of defending
each numbered paragraph
" in the charge and obviously'
were delighted to pour out
the evidence before a na-
tional television audience.

Rep. Charles Sandman (R-
N.J.),- the Republican who .
had sought Friday to strike
each paragraph one by one*
backed down quickly y ester-
/ day, acknowledged he lack-
ed the Votes to win, and
safd the committee should
gp ahead and vote on the
whole article.

But Flowers insisted that
the committee had to build
a record of evidence and de-
manded a: debate and vote
on each of Sandma n ’ s-
amendments. •

The. first amendment Flow-
ers offered yesterday was to
eliminate a paragraph charg-
ing that the cover-up plan
included “withholding rele-
vant and material evidence
or information (on the
break-in) from lawfully au-
thorized investigative offi-
vers and employees of the
United States.”

Rep. William Cohen (R-
‘ Maine)’ promptly began rat-
tling off evidence to show
that Mr. Nixon and his top:
k aides had withheld such in-
W. formation.

. Cohen said that shortly af-
ter the June 17, 1972, break-,
in Mr. -■'Nixon and his aide,
John D. Ehrlichman, knew
that men from the Commit-
tee for the Re-election, of
the President were involved.
‘‘These facts were withheld
from the Attorney General
r and other investigators,-* he
said. sfev i

There was also physical
evidence in the White House
~-a memo from H. R. Halde-
man, chief of staff, a phone
book containing E. Howard
Hunt’s name, and a copy of
a political intelligence plan
— that was' destroyed or al-
tered, Cohen said.

He also recalled that for-
mer Attorney General John
N. Mitehell told Mr." Nixon
he was sorry he hadn’t su-
pervised more closely r ‘ re-
election committee employ-
ees who were involved and
that Mr. Nixon had noted
that information in one of
his Dictabelt recollections.

Cohen also said that on
March 13, 1973, Mr. Nixon
was told that a White House
aide, (Jonjon Strachhan, . had
committed perjury, but he
failed to report that infor-
mation jto investigators.

Reps. Dennis and Wiggins
led the counter-attack, argu-
ing that Cohen’s list of evi- .

~ dence implicates Mr. Nixon’s '
aides but not the President
himself in withholding infor-
mation.

Ehrlichman, Mitchell and
Haldeman all had something
to cover up, but the Presi-
dent didn’t, Dennis said. He
said the President didn’t
know anything about details
of the cover-up until told of
it on March 21, 1973, by his
counsel^ John W. Dean III.

Wiggins contended that
even the famous March 21,
conversation with Dean

didn’t implicate the Presi-
dent. He argued that, in con-
text, that conversation

showed Mr. Nixon anxious
to have the policy of with-
holding,” Wiggins said.

But Mr. Nixon had

learned on March 13 of Stra-
chan’s perjury, countered
Rep. John Seiberling (D-
Ohio). “Did the President
rise up in righteous indigna-
tion?” asked Seiberling. “He
did nothing”

The move to strike the
paragraph on withholding
evidence was defeated on an
overwhelming voice vote.

The only major substan-
tive change in Article I
voted yesterday was de-
signed to make it more pal-
atable In the Senate if Mr.
Nixon should be brought to
trial there.

Originally the article
charged that Mr. Nixon
“made it his policy”' to ob-
struct the investigation of
Watergate and to protect
those responsible.

An amendment introduced
by Railsback charged instead
that the President engaged
“in a course of conduct or
plan designed” to impede and
obstruct the investigation.

Railsback said he had dif-
ficulty believing that Mr.
Nixon at any specific time
formulated a policy of ob-
struction, but he said the
record shows a “course of
conduct” amounting to ob-
struction.

Dennis observed thaL
Railsback’S amendment
cited a “plan” of obstruction
and asked: “What’s the dif-
ference between a policy
and a plan?”

Railsback acknowledged
he also had trouble judging
the difference, but said that
committee counsel believed
that the word “policy” had
, the connotation of an
“orchestrated” effort to ob-
struct.

“I believe that certain
events occurred to which
Mr. Nixon didn't respond or
responded to in an improper
way,” Railsback added.

Did Railsback mean Mr.
Nixon intentionally acted in
such a way as to delay or
impede the investigation? j
Wiggins wanted to know.
Railsback said he meant
that Mr. Nixon acted know-
ingly for the purpose of de-
laying and impeding it

Rep. Wayne Owens (D-
Tftah) said >he was satisfied
that' obstruction was a delib-
erate policy of the President
but said that the new lan-
guage, would “make proof in
the Senate easier.”

Railsback’s amendment
was approved on a voice
vote.

The only other substan-
tive amendment was one by
Rep. George E. Danielson
(D-Calif.). It accused Mr.
Nixon of interfering or try-
ing to interfere with investi-
gations by congressional
committees. The original ar-
ticle had said he interfered
with investigations by the
Justice Department, the
FBI, and the Watergate Spe-
cial Prosecution Force.

Danielson charged that
Mr. Nixon tried to interfere
with the investigations plan-
ned or launched by the
House Banking and Cur-
rency Committee, the Sen-
ate Watergate committee,
and the House Judiciary
Committee,

Wiggins countered that
there never, was a Banking
and Currency Committee in-
vestigation for Mr. Nixon to
interfere with. The only evi-
dence he tried to interfere
with the Senate Watergate
committee, Wiggins said,
consisted of his considering
withholding witnesses

through claims of executive
.privilege* claims that were
finally relinquished.

Danielson claimed Mr.
Nixon interfered with the
Judiciary Committee by
withholding tapes and docu-
ments. Wiggins said the <
/President was merely mak-
ing a ‘'“good faith claim” to
executive privilege by with-
holding these pieces of evi-
dence.

Danielson’s amendment
was adopted 24 to 14, with
supporters and opponents of
impeachment winding up on
both sides of the issue.

Two minor amendments
offered by Rep. Lawrence
Hogan (R-Md.) were ap-
proved on voice votes. One
changed “illegal” entry to
“unlawful” entry. Another
related to a charge that the
obstruction involved the
making of false statements
to investigators; Hogan’s
language added the phrase
“or causing to be made.”

After a mid-afternoon re-
cess, Flowers agreed to limit
debate to 20 minutes on
each of his amendments to
strike sections. And he
passed over some without
amendment. His amend-
ments were beaten back by
votes of better than 2 to 1.
Flowers himself voted
“Present,” rather than no, to
show he wasn’t really trying
to knock out the numbered
charges, bub rather to pro-
duce specific incidents of im-
proper conduct.

Opposing an amendent to
strike a section stating that
the President condoned pr
counseled perjury. Rep. M.
Caldwell Butler (R-Va.) read
rapidly from the transcript
of Dean’s March 21, 1973,
meeting with the President.

Butler noted that Dean
told the President that Jeb
Stuart Magruder and Her-
bert Porter, at the re-elec-
tion committee, had commit-

Associated Press v

House Judiciary Chairman Peter W. Rodino Jr. confers with Rep. Robert McClory.

ted perjury before the
Watergate grand jury and
that the President expressed
no opposition to it. He also
read from a March 27 tran-
script where the President’s
top aide, Haldeman, asked
Mr. Nixon whether Dean
“should stay with the old
lie” and the President re-
plied, “What would you ad-
vise him to do?”

Wiggins defending the
President, said Mr. Nixon
had learned of Magruder’s
and Porter’s perjury after
the fact and so had not
“counseled” it. The section
also contained the words
“approving, condoning, ac-
quiescind in . . Wiggins
said “two reasonable pqssi-
bilities” must be resolved in
favor of the President.

Flower’s pro forma Effort
to strike a section charging
the Presideht with attempt-
ing to interfere with the
Justice Department and FBI
Watergate investigation was
strongly opposed by Hogan,

a former^FBLagent.

Hogan recited events
starting June 23, 1973, when
the President directed
Haldeman and Ehrlichman
to meet with top CIA offi-
cials and instruct them to
relay to the FBI White
House concern that the FBI
Watergate investigation in
Mexico might expose CIA
activities there. The CIA re-
ported back that there was
10 jeopardy to the CIA.

But the President’s coun-
sel, Dean, persisted in try-
ing to keep the FBI out of
Mexico, Hogan said. The
reason, he said, was that
man investigation would
have traced money found on
the Watergate burglars
through a laundering proc-
ess in Mexico and bhck to
the re-electioh committee.
After this, acting FBI Direc-
tor Patrick Gray told Mr.
Nixon his aides were trying
s to “mortally wound” him,
but the President didn’t
even ask what he meant, Ho-
gan said.

Wiggins responded that
the President naturally had
concern about possible CIA
involvement in the Water-
gate break-in because of the
CIA background of several
of the burglars.

Wiggins ✓ said the Presi-
dent’s concern was that co-
vert CIA operations not be
exposed, not that the trail of
the money be covered.

And when Mr. Nixon
talked with Gray, said Wig-
gins, he properly responded
that Gray should “continue
your investigation.”

The President’s critics try
unreasonably to make some-
thing of a “perceptible
pause” before Mr. Nixon re-
plied to Gray’s “mortally
wound” remark, said Wig-
gins.

House Majority Leader
Thomas P. O’Neill (D-Mass.)
has repeatedly predicted
that if the committee rec-
ommended impeachment,
the House would vote to im-
peach the President by a
margin of 50 votes or more.

Democrats on the Judici-
ary Committee are more lib-
eral than House Democrats
as a whole, and committee
Republicans are more con-
servative than the House
Republicans generally.

But Southern Democrats
on the committee — James R.
Mann of South Carolina,
Flowers of Alabama and
Thornton of Arkansas — are
highly respected by their col-
leagues and should help make

a vote for impeachment re-
spectable among their
Southern colleagues except
for a relatively small group
of about 25 conservatives
who appear to have adopted
an attitude of “never.”
Similarly, committee Re-
publicans like conservative
Hogan, respected Southerner
Butler, and Mid-westem mod-
erate Railsback, should be
persuasive with various
groups of Republicans in the
House.

After the Judiciary- Com-
mittee . completes its work,
it must write a report ex-
plaining to the House in de-
tail why it has recommended
impeachment. The commit-
tee . will then go to the
House Rules Committee a
week later to get a resolu-
tion fixing ground rules fpr
debate on the floor.

The House is expected to
debate the articles about
two weeks under the rule,
permitting amendments-' as
the committee procedure
did, and vote about Aug. 24.

If the case goes to the
Senate, the trial is expected
to last about two months,
preceded by a delay to per-
mit the President’s lawyers
to prepare his defense.

Rep. George E. Danielson’s amendment to add the phrase
“and congressional committees” to the clause on interfer-
ence with investigations of Article I:

YES (24)
Donohue (D-Mass.)
Brooks (D-Tex.)
Kastenmeier (D-Wis.)
Edwards (D-Calif.)
Hungate (D-Mo.)
Conyers (D-Mich.)
Eilberg (D-Pa.)
Waldie (D-Calif.)
Mann (D-S.C.)
Sarbanes (D-Md.)
Seiberling (D-Ohlo)
Danielson (D-Calif.)

Drinan :( D-Mass.)
Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Jordan (D-Tex.)
Thorton (D-Ark.)
Holtzman (D.-N.Y.)
Owens (P-Utah
Rodino (D-N.J.)
McClory (R-lll.)
Smith. (R-N.Y. L
Wiggins (R-Calif.)
Dennis (R-Ind.)
Mezvinsky (D-lowa)

'■ / • ' ■' : '

NO (14).

Flowers CD- Ala.) .
Hutchinson (RW\Aicb.)
Sandman (R-N.J.) .

Railsback; (R-lll.)

Fish (R-N.Y.) :

Mayne (R-towa)

Hogan (R-Md.)

Butler (R-Va.)

Ogrr gh TR^ M fflne) ;

Loft (R-Miss.)

Froehlich (R-Wls.)
Moorhead (R-Calif.)
Maraziti (R-NJ.) . r
Latta (R-Ohio) .

Rep. Walter Flowers’ motion to strike the third enum-
erate paragraph of Rep. Paul S. Sarbanes’ substitute Article

I of the impeachment resoluton:

YES (12)

Hutchinson (R) Donohue (D)

McClory (R) Brooks (D)

Smith (R) Kastenmeier (D)

Sandman (R) Edwards (D)

Wiggins (R) Hungate (D)

Dennis (R) Conyers (D)

Mayne (R) Eilberg (D)

Lott (R) Waldie (D)

Froehlich (R) Mann (D)

Moorhead (R) Sarbanes (D)

Maraziti (R) SeilberHn a CD)

Latta (R) Danielson (D)

Drinan (D) .

Flowers (D) voted present.

■■v 'X: :

NO 2&

Thornton (D) .
Holtzman (D)

Owens (D)
Mezvisnky (43)
Rodino (D)

Railsback (R)

Fish (R)

Hogan (R)

rmv'

*V-

(A Flowers motion to strike the eighth enumerated
paragraph was defeated by the same vote.)

Rep. Walter Flowers’ motion to strike the fourth enum-
erated paragraph of Rep. Paul S. Sarbanes’ substitute
Article I of the impeachmerit resolution:

YES (11)
Hutchinson (R)
Smith CR)
Sandman (R)
Wiggins (R)

Dennis (R)

Mayne (R)

Lott (R)

Froehlich (R)
Moorhead (R)
Maraziti (R)

Latta (R)

Donohue (D)
Brooks CD) V
Kastenmeier (D)
Edwards (D)
Hungate^ (Di-
Conyers (D)
Eilberg (D)

. Waldie (D)

Mann ( D),
Sarbanes (D)
Seiberlina CD)
Danielson. (D)
Drir\en (D) .

NO 2*

. Rangel (D)
Jordan (D) ..
Thornton (D). ....
Holtzman (D)
Owens (D)
Mezvinsky (D) .

McClory (R)
Railsback (R)

. Fish (R)

• Hogan (R) - >

Butler (-BJ
Cohen (R)

Rodino. (D)

Flowers (D) voted present.

6' a

;

(A Flowers motion to strike the seventh enumerated, para-
graph was defeated by the same vote.) V
Rep. Walter’ Flowers’ motion to. strike the ninth enumerated;
paragraph of Rep. Paul S. Sarbanes substitute Article 1 of
the impeachment resolution:

YES (15)

Donohue (D)
Kastenmeier- (D)
Edwards CD)
Hungate (D)
Conyers (D)
Eilberg (D) .
Waldie (D)

- Mann CD)
Sarbanes (D)
Seiberlina (D) '
Danielson (D) .
Drinan (D)

Flowers (D)

Hutchinson (R)

McClory CR)

Smith (R)

Sandman (R)

Railsback (R)

Wiggins (R)

Dennis (R)

Fish (R)

Mayne (R)

Lott (R)

Froehlich (R)

Moorhead (R) . * . .... ,

Maraziti (R)

Latta (R),/ -

The vote on Pauls. Sarbane’s substitute Article I of the
impeachment resblution:

NO (23)

Rangel (D)

- a 'Jordan (D) V!r
Thornton (D)

Holtzman (D> : ^

r Owens (D).

Mezvisnky (D)

Hogan CR)

• i Butler (R1
Cohen TrT
. • Rodino (D) - -

. Brooks (D)

YES (27)

Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Jordan (D-Tex*)
Thornton (D-Ark.)
Holtzman (D-N.Y.)
Owens (D-Utah)
Mezvinsky (D-lowa)
Railsback (R-lll.)
Fish: (R-N.Y.

Hogan (R-Md.)

aiMm.,

Froehlich (R-Wis.)
Rodino (D-N.J.)

Donohue (D-Mass.)

Brooks (D-Tex.)

Kastenmeier (D-Wis.)

Edwards (D-Calif.)

Hungate (D-Mo.)

Conyers (D-Mich.)

Eilberg (D-Pa.)

Waldie (D-Calif.)

Flowers (D-Ala.)

Mann (D-S.C.)

Sarbanes (D-Md.)

Seiberlina (D-Ohio)

Danielson (D-Calif.)

Drinan (D-Mass.)

Article I of the impeachment resolution was adopted by the
same vote.

— — — • '•%

NO (11)

Hutchinson (R-Mich.)
McClory (R-lll..)
Smith (R-N.Y.)
Sandman (R-N.J.)
Wiggins (R-Calif, )
Dennis (R-Ind.)
Mayne (R-lowa)

Lott (R-Miss.)
Moorhead (R-Calif;)
Maraziti (R-N .J.)
Latta- (R-Ohio)

Rep. Charles Sandman Jr., R-N. J., fights hard for the Nixon view.

By Walter Taylor
and Martha Angle

Star-News Staff Writers

committee in adopting one article of impeach-
ment containing nine specific allegations of
wrongdoing by Nixon.

THE COMMITTEE will resume its delibera-
tions tomorrow and may adopt one or more addi-
tional articles before completing its historic ac-
tion on a Resolution of Impeachment, expected to
go to the full House within two weeks.

Committee support for the article cut into both
Republican and Southern conservative support

Nixon has had in the House, increasing the
j^hance the full House will back the committee.

But in California, the White House publicly
reacted blandly to the vote. In a one-paragraph
written statement attributed to Press Secretary
Ronald L. Ziegler, now one of Nixon’s closest
confidants, the White House said:

“The President remains confident that the full
House will recognize that there simply is not the
evidence to support this or any other article of
impeachment and will not vote to impeach. He is

confident because he knows he has committed no
impeachable offense.”

SEVEN MONTHS of investigation and three
days of nationally televised debate ended in
agonizing personal decisions by each member of
the committee on the momentous impeachmen*
question.

The toughness of the decision was summed up
by Rep. Walter Flowers, a conservative Demo-

See IMPEACHMENT, A-12

Continued from Page A-l

crat from Alabama who
voted for impeachment but
noted many of his constitu-
ents would not agree with
his vote.

Saying some of his con-
stituents would complain
his decision hurt them deep-
ly, Flowers added, “I have
enough pain for them and
me.”

THE HISTORIC impeach-
ment vote was officially an-
nounced at 7:05 p.m. by
Chairman Peter W. Rodino
Jr., D-N.J., who spokes
swiftly and formally. He
said:

“Pursuant to the resolu-
tion, Article One of that
resolution is adopted and
reported to the House.”

The committee action as-
sures that its recommenda-
tion that Nixon be impeach-
ed and brought to trial in
the Senate will go to the
House floor.

THE IMPACT of the com-
mittee vote could be meas-
ured, in part, by a subse-
quent announcement by
Senate Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield of Montana,
who said he would meet
tomorrow with Minority
Leader Hugh Scott to
launch formal Senate
preparations for an im-
peachment trial of Nixon.

“The line of demarcation
has been reached,” Mans-
field said, although a
majority of the House still
must be mustered before
the Senate would get the
case for trial.

Not since 1868, when the
|House Committee on Recon-
struction approved an im-
peachment bill against An-
drew Johnson, has such a
charge been brought
against an American presi-
dent. The Senate failed by
one vote to convict Johnson.

When the Judiciary com-
mittee resumes its delibera-
tions tomorrow at 10:30
a.m., it will take up another
article against Nixon, alleg-
ing that he abused his *
powers. At least one addi-
tional impeachment article
also is likely to be offered.

AFTER THE VOTE yes-
terday, Rodino, his face
etched by lines of fatigue,
said, “I don’t feel happy.”
Rodino said there now is
an “effort under considera-
tion” to draft a third article
charging Nixon with con-
tempt of Congress for his
defiance of subpoenas is-
sued by the committee for
White House tapes and
other evidence sought in its
investigation.

The contempt allegation
was lumped into the abuse
of poWer article proposed
Wednesday by Rep. Harold
Donohue, D-Mass. But it
now may be split off and
made into a separate
charge.

AND AS THE committee
concluded its work last
night. Rep. Edward Mez-
vinsky, D-Iowa, submitted
to Rodino a proposed article
charging Nixon with failing
to live up to his constitution-
al duties in connection with
his taxes and personal fi-
nances.

The draft article alleged
the President “did receive
emoluments from the
United States in excess of
the compensation provided
by law” in the form of gov-
ernment expenditures for
his homes in San Clemente
and Key Biscayne.

The article further charg-
ed the President “failed to
report certain income and
claimed deductions in the
years 1969, 1970, 1971 and
1972 on his federal income
tax returns which were not
authorized by law.”

The article approved last
night alleges:

“In his conduct of the of-
fice of President of the
United States, Richard M.
Nixon, in violation of his
constitutional oath faithful-
ly to execute the office of
President of the United
States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution
of the United States, and in
violation of his constitution-
al duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed,
has prevented, obstructed
and impeded the adminis-
tration of justice . . .”

The roll call vote took just
two minutes, as committee
lawyer Gamer James Cline
called off the names of each
of the committee’s 38 mem-
bers and they in turn re-
sponded “aye” or “nay” on
the impeachment count.

Republicans voting
against the impeachment
article were:

Edward Hutchinson of
Michigan, Robert McClory
of Illinois, Henry P. Smith
III of New York, Charles E.
Wiggins of California,
David W. Dennis of Indi-
ana, Wiley Mayne of Iowa,
Trent Lott of Mississippi,
Carlos J. Moorhead of Cali-
fornia, Joseph Maraziti of
New Jersey, Delbert L.
Latta of Ohio, and Charles
W. Sandman of New Jersey.

IN RESPONSE to the
concern of Rep. Tom Rails-
back, R-Ill., and some con-
servative Democrats, the
language of the article was
refined earlier yesterday to
delete a section that charg-
ed Nixon “made it his poli-
cy” to obstruct justice in
the Watergate case.

By voice vote, the panel
adopted substitute language
proposed by Railsback that
alleges that the President
engaged “in a course of
conduct or plan” to impede
the investigation.

Impeachment advocates
said they felt the new lan-
guage strengthened
chances for winning House
approval of the article and,
further down the road, for
proving the charge in a Sen-
ate trial.

SOME REPUBLICANS
who oppose the impeach-
ment article argued during
debate on Friday that there
was no evidence to prove
that a “policy,” which they
said would have needed a
specific initiation and end-
ing point, ever was in ef-
fect.

One of the President’s
most outspoken defenders.
Rep. Charles E. Wiggins, R-
Calif., said he believed the
new wording “improves the
article from a legal view-
point,” but, disagreeing
with impeachment advo-
cates, argued that it makes
it “much more difficult to
prove the case.”

The adopted article, draft-
ed by a bipartisan coalition
of impeachment advocates,
specifically alleges that
following the June 17, 1972,
break-in at Watergate head-
quarters of the Democratic
National Committee, Nixon,
“using the powers of his
high office, engaged, pers-
onally and through his sub-
ordinants and agents, in a
course of conduct or plan
designed to delay, impede
and obstruct the investiga-
tion of such unlawful entry;
to cover-up, conceal and
protect those responsible;
and to conceal the existence
and scope of other unlawful
covert activities.”

The nine specifications in
the article accuse the Presi.

dent of making or causing
to be made “false or mis-
leading statements” to
Watergate investigators;
“approving, condoning and
acquiescing in” the payment
of “hush money” to Water-
gate defendants; offering
“favored treatment and
consideration” to criminal
defendants “in return for
their silence or false testi-
mony,” and “making false
or misleading public state-
ments for the purpose of de-
ceiving the people of the
United States . .

“In all of this,” the arti-
cle charges, “Richard M.
Nixon has acted in a man-
ner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive of
constitutional government,
to the great prejudice of the
cause of law and justice and
to the manifest injury of
the people of the United
States.”

Although conceding that
they lacked the votes to pre-
vent impeachment recom-
mendations, Republicans
still loyal to the President
argued until the time for the
final vote that none of the
evidence before the panel
tied Nixon to impeachable
wrongdoing.

“The more you analyze it,
the more you understand
how weak this case is on the
facts,” Dennis, a leader of
the defense effort argued.

The six Republicans vot-
ing in favor of the impeach-
ment article were Reps.
Tom Railsback of Illinois,
Hamilton Fish Jr. of New
York, Lawrence J. Hogan
of Maryland, William S.
Cohen of Maine, Harold V.
Froehlich of Wisconsin and
M. Caldwell Butler of Vir-
ginia.

ONLY THE VOTE of
Froehlich among the
Republicans came as a sur-
prise. The others had indi-
cated that they were lean-
ing toward an impeachment
vote on the obstruction
count.

As a prelude to last
night’s vote, committee
members favoring impeach-
ment employed a parlia-
mentary tactic to place on
the record — and before
millions of Americans
watching television — evi-
dence they said supported
each of nine specific allega- j
tions contained in the ob-
struction article.

Flowers moved to strike
from the article each of the*
the article each of the
specific charges, allowing*
the pro-impeachment mem-
bers to read portions of
taped transcript, White
House memoranda and
other documentary evi-
dence in support of the alle-
gations.

Each of the motions was
voted down with Flowers
voting “present” so as hot
to have to vote “nay” to his
own motion or, with an
“aye”, being put on the side
of those seeking to kill the
charges.

AS DEBATE on the first
article resumed at mid-day
yesterday, both the pace
and the focus of discussion
sharpened significantly.

Rodino began by imposing
a one-hour limit on debate
dn eac h amendment or

* motion offered by commit-
tee members.

Then Sandman, who Fri-
day signaled his intent to
challenge each and every
section of the article,
agreed to abandon such ef-
forts to save time.

“There’s no way the out-
come of this vote is going to
be changed by debate,” he
said.

BUT REP. FLOWERS, a

Southern conservative who
favored impeachment but
who said he wanted the
specific allegations against

the President spelled out
more clearly in debate, took
over the Sandman role and
made motions to strike para-
graphs from the article.

“1 do this not for dilatory
reasons, but to illicit from
members of the panel and
staff the specifics of such
charges, evidence and proof
that we have that would
come under each paragraph
of this article,” Flowers
said.

Debate then began on the
second of nine specific alle-
gations contained in the
article — that the President
withheld “relevant and
material information from
lawfully authorized investi-
gative officers and em-
ployes of the United
States.”

Reps. William S. Cohen,
R-Maine; George Daniel-
son, D-Calif.; Joshua Eil-
berg, D-Pa. ; and John Seib-
erling, D-Ohio, took on the
assignment of reciting in
chronological order the
“factual evidentiary
material” which they said
would apply to each sub-
section of the impeachment
article.

Countering for the de-.
fense of the President were
Wiggins and Dennis.

COHEN BEGAN reciting
the events that he said
showed the President’s di-
rect knowledge of Water-
gate details:

ROLL CALL VOTE

Following is the 27-to-ll roll call vote by which the
House Judiciary Committee adopted an article
recommending impeachment of President Nixon on
grounds of obstructing justice.

Democrats for: Donohue, Mass.; Brooks, Texas;
Kastenmeier, Wis.; Edwards, Calif.; Hungate, Mo.;
Conyers, Mich.; Eilberg, Pa.; Waldie, Calif-
Flowers, Ala.; Mann, S.C.; Sarbanes, Md.; Seiber-
ling.Ohio; Danielson, Calif.; Drinan, Mass.; Ran-
gel,N.Y.; Jordan, Tex.; Thornton, Ark.; Holtzman,
N.Y.; Owens, Utah; Mezvinsky, Iowa; Rodino, N.J.

Republicans for: Railsback, 111.; Fish, N.Y •
Hogan, Md.; Butler, Va.; Cohen, Maine; Froehlich’,
Wis.

Democrats against: None.

Republicans against: Hutchinson, Mich.;
McClory, 111.; Smith, N.Y.; Sandman, N.J.; Wig-
gins, Calif.; Dennis, Ind.; Mayne, Iowa; Lott,
Miss.; Moorhead, Calif.; Maraziti, N.J.; Latta,
Ohio.

By June 19, 1972 — two
days after the break-in —
John N. Mitchell and
Frederick LaRue, the top
men in Nixon’s campaign
committee, and other
administration aides knew
that the Watergate bur-
glary was in operation plan-
ned and directed by G. Gor-
don Liddy and E. Howard
Hunt.

By June 20, 1972, White
House efforts were under-
way to obfuscate the ties
between Hunt and Liddy
and the White House.

On June 28, 1972, John
Ehrlichman and John W.
Dean delivered the contents
of Hunt’s White House safe
to acting FBI Director L.
Patrick Gray III, along
with the advice that the
materials never should “see
the light of day.”

LATER, EILBERG, Dan-
ielson and Seiberling picked
up the now-familiar litany:
On March 13, 1973 Dean told
the President that White
House aide Gordon Stra-
chan had lied to a Water-
gate grand jury.

On March 21, 1973, the
President was told by Dean
that alleged “hush money”
payments had been made to
the original Watergate de-
fendants and that other
administration aides had
lied before the grand jury.

Wiggins and Dennis,
meanwhile, argued that few
of the occurances cited by
the Democrats directly in-
volved the President. The
thrust of their defense was
that Nixon himself had been
the victim of a cover-up
perpetrated by most trusted
aides.

Ehrlichman naa to cover
up the unlawful operations
of the White House “Plum-
bers” unit, Dennis asserted.
Mitchell, he said, knew
about the Liddy plan to bug
and burglarize the Demo-
cratic National Committee.
H.R. Haldeman, the Presi-
dent’s most trusted adviser,
had seen political matters
memos which showed that
the campaign committee
was embarking on illegal
activities, he added.

“The more you analyze
it,” Dennis concluded, “the
more you understand how
this case is on the facts.”

After less than two hours
of such debate, Sandman
and some of the other mem-
bers of the committee had
lost patience with the dry
recitation of facts that have
been before the committee
for months.

Rowland Evans and Robert Novak

House Judiciary: The Return to Partisanship

v i ywtC

> n «i oh

“Table-pounding and high decibel polem-
ics . . . gave the public a taste of what
closed-door sessions have been like/’

The House Judiciary Committee’s
descent Friday into bitter partisan in-
fighting after two days of stately de-
bate publicly revealed what a small bi-
partisan bloc of moderates was up
against behind closed doors for months
of the impeachment inquiry.

On their good behavior for their
first nationally televised exposure,
noisily partisan committee members
reverted to form when the inquiry got
down to the specifics of the articles of
impeachment: hardcore Republicans
trumpeting their bitter-end defense of
President Nixon and fire-eating Demo-
crats delivering jeremiads against him
— both sides drowning out the moder-
ates.

Thus those moderates — who long
ago decided, regretfully in many cases,
that Mr. Nixon must be impeached—
still had to cut through intense parti-
sanship on both sides to achieve a bi-
partisan majority that would be sup-
ported in the House, the Senate and
the nations.

What has made their taslr so diffi-
cult all year has been the polarized
condition of the Judiciary Committee.
Its Democrats are to the left of House
Democrats generally; its Republicans
are well to the right of the House Re-
publican mainstream.

The hardcore of Nixon Republicans
on the comiitee have been particularly
bellicose under the prodding of Rep.

, Delbert Latta of Ohio, who went on
the committee this year for the pur-
of defending the President and is
t^ave once the impeach-

ment inquiry is completed. Republi-
cans departing from the party line in
closed sessions have been subjected to
grimaces, groans and sneers from
Latta. Such pressure has been so in-
tense that some moderates long ago
stopped attending caucuses of Judici-
ary Committee Republicans.

Nor have the Democrats been free
from partisanship. Since the begin-
ning, Chairman Peter Rodino consistent-
ly has resisted, then reluctantly gone
along with moderate demands for bi-
partisan procedures. But Democratic
fire-eaters have persisted in leaking
confidential material to the press and
seeking to expand the case against Mr.
Nixon to such dubious areas as the
bombing of Cambodia and impound-
ment of funds.

Serious efforts to draft articles of
impeachment avoiding extreme parti-
sanship and attracting a large biparti-
san majority began secretly and infor-
mally two weeks ago among three
moderates: Democratic Rep. Walter
Flowers of Alabama and Republican
Reps. Thomas Railsback of Illinois
and William Cohen of Maine.

Four more moderate members —
Democrats James Mann of South Caro-
lina and Ray Thornton of Arkansas
and Republicans Hamilton Fish Jr. of
New York and M. Caldwell Butler of
Virginia — were invited to a meeting in
Railsback’s office last Tuesday morn-
ing. The seven moderates found them-
selves in substantial agreement on two
articles of impeachment, charging Mr.
Nixon with obstruction of justice and
abuse of power.

Their private meetings were joined
by conservative Republican Rep. Law-
rence Hogan of Maryland after his
stunning announcement for impeach-
ment Tuesday afternoon. Hogan, un-
comfortable on his new impeachment
limb, began pushing hard for articles
that would attract other conservatives
—particularly freshman Rep. Harold
Froehlich of Wisconsin.

Momentarily, the partisans — particu-
lar hardcore Nixon Republicans —
seemed in retreat. As the Judiciary
Committee convened Friday morning,
one pro-impeachment Republican told
us: “For the first time, I don’t feel

pressure on me.”

■ /

It was a premature feeling of relief.
Indeed, Hogan had tasted the wrath of
hardcore colleagues Tuesday on the
House floor when Arizona’s Rep. Sam
Steiger gave him a raspberry cheer
and Indiana’s Rep. Roger Zion raised
$1,600 in contributions for Hogan’s op-
ponent in Maryland’s Republican pri-
mary for governor. More importantly,
relative 1 y restrained conduct by Latta
and other hardcore Republicans dur-
ing the televised general debate Wed-
nesday and Thursday did not survive
Friday’s session.

Table-pounding, high-decibel polem-
ics by Latta, Indiana’s David Dennis
and New Jersey’s Charles Sandman
gave the public a taste of what closed-
door sessions have been like these
many months. The inappropriate re-
sponse came from fire-eating Demo-
crats Jerome Waldie of California and
Robert Drinan of Massachusetts, recit-
ing theories of Mr. Nixon’s Watergate
involvement that few members of the
committee’s pro-impeachment majority
could accept.

Television viewers might have been
shocked when Latta gratuitously
raised the extraneous matter of a bar
association committee headed by com-
mittee impeachment counsel Albert
Jenner recommending repeal of anti-
prostitution laws. But not his col-
leagues. “That’s par for the course for
Delbert,” one Republican member told
us. Thanks to Latta and his allies th&
impeachment road promises to be a
long and bitter one.

C) 1974, FieW Enterprises, Inc.

belatedly aware that their hard-line
defense has failed to impede certain
impeachment by the House, President
Nixon’s strategists are moving toward
an eleventh-hour tactical shift: a soft-
line undermining of the impeachment
case’s factual foundation for use in the
Sedate trial.

' With pessimism saturating the White
Ijouse, the enormity of Oval Office
miscalculation is sinking in. The Nixon
White House, as so often before, com-
pletely . misread political footprints
other, politicians understood, for
mxhiths. Mr. Nixon’s most trusted sup-
porters in the House have informed
lum .he is irrevocably dead there, an
assessment concurred in by presiden-
ti^, assistants.

-Thus, the trauma of the nationally
televised proceedings has resulted in
two White House reassessments: first,
Mk. Nixon’s strength among House Re-
publicans and Southern Democrats has
suddenly evaporated; second, the Pres-
ident’s strident counterattack strategy
has been exposed as counterproduc-
tive.

'That means tentative White House
strategy at least in the immediate fu-
ture will be relatively nonflamboyant.
By contending the factual case against
him is vague, Nixon strategists hope to
keep the anti-Nixon margin in the
House as low as possible and build a
case for the Senate. But there is no
lohger certainty Mr. Nixon can pick up
the one-third plus one votes needed in
the Senate.

...Such a somber view of Mr. Nixon’i
prospects resulted from televised pro-
ceedings smashing the dream world at
tlh|..‘ White House. Although an im-
peachment vote by the House Judici-
ary Committee has long been ex-
pected, the Nixon camp was stunned
byTts size, the identity of some, pro-im-
peachment Republicans and, particu-
larly, the overwhelmingly favorable
impresssion of the proceedings given.
thV nation over television. ‘

Specifically, the vote for impeach-
ment by Rep. Walter Flowers, an Ala-
bama conservative Democrat, ; crum-
pled Nixonite hopes of a steadfast
Dixie bloc. “He hurt us bad,” admits
Rep. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery of
Mississippi, the Presidents most vocal
, Southern Democratic supporter. In-
\ ‘stead of 40 Southern Democrats sup-
V parting him, the President may have
l only half that . number.

United Press International

Th£ Republican situation is worse.
House Minority Leader John Rhodes
of Arizona almost surely will vote
against impeachment. However, a ris-
ing House' Republican leader — 'Rep.
Barber Conable of New. York,! chair-
man of the GOP policy committee—
could start a Republican stampede to-
ward impeachment.

Conable has been shaken by charges
that President Nixon tried to subvert
the Internal Revenue , Service. While
believing his upstate Republican const-
ituency opposes impeachment, he is
determined to vote strictly on the ba-
sis of evidence. If so loyal a Nixon ad-
ministration supporter as Conable de-
fects, well in excess of 50 Republicans
could follow.

This grim prognosis suggests to
some presidential aides that fighting
impeachment by counterattacking has
proved . calamitous. Press Secretary
Ronald Ziegler’s rushing from the
President’s office to damn the Judici-
ary Committee as a “Kangaroo Court”

was deeply resented by White House
colleagues. “We have to keep that
(expletive) bigmouth Ziegler shut up/*
one senior aide told us.

urges that course. For example, Rep.
John Anderson of Illinois, chairman of
the House Republican Conference, was
berated last spring when he suggested
and will not repeat tihat

Moreover, some presidential assist-^( resi g natl0n
ants belatedly feel Mr. Nixon’s defense ™ re^jrnmendation today,
should not follow the partisan emo-ji /^Wtte other option was offered weeks

. • 1 • e% -fcT T 1 T'> 1 * « Utt a 4-Vk virt /% -C 4-V» /> TD /\V\ i i Vv

tionalism of New Jersey’s Rep. Charles
Sandman. Their model is the legalistic*
reasoned defense by Rep. Charles Wig-
gins of California.

White House aides privately talking
of Mr. Nixon taking national television
time to defend himself are hoping he
would not follow his normal passions
into a tirade against his enemies.
Rather, they hope that he would ana-
lyze and refute the 50 “incidents”
listed by committee counsel John Doar
as justifying impeachment. While that
will not prevent impeachment by the
House, the White House desperately
Hopes it might help in. the Senate trial.

Two other options are open to the
President. One is resignation, but
scarcely anybody in Congress now

ago by another member of the Repub-
lican leadership: Rep. Louis Frey of
Florida, chairman of the Research
Cpmmittee. Frey urged that the Presi-
dent request the House to send articles
of impeachment quickly and without
debate to the Senate so he might have
a fair trial. It was summarily rejected
by the White House as a gimmick to
take congressmen off the hook, a view
that surely remains unchanged.

Time and options are running out in
the view of the White House. The pro-
jected shift to a primarily legal rather
than wholly political defense for the
Senate trial may be the best way left
open for preservation of the Nixon
presidency.

©1974, Field Enterprises, Inc.

mzimY

1 - 31 - 7 *

Judiciary Committee votes on a point in Article III. Front row, from left: Wayne Owens, Lawrence Hogan, M. Caldwell

By James K. W. Atherton — The Washington Post

Butler and William Cohen. Back row: Robert McClory, Henry P. Smith, Charles W. Sandman and Thomas Railsback.

■"{■ ■■ i : ' ‘ - - - , Pcxir '1

2 Counts Fail; Inquiry Ends

By Richard L. Lyons
and William. Chapman

Washington Post Staff Writers

The House Judiciary Committee- ap-
proved a third article of impeachment
against President Nixon yesterday for
defying its subpoenas and then last
night concluded its historic inquiry
after rejecting two other articles in-
volving the secret bombing of Cambo-
dia and tax fraud.

The Cambodia article, accusing the
President of concealing the bombing
and misleading Congress and the pub-
lic, was rejected 26 to 12, with all 17
Republicans and nine Democrats vot-
ing against.

The personal finances article, charg-
ing both tax fraud and unconstitu-
tional receipt of emoluments from the
federal government for his private
homes, was rejected, 26 to 12. Republi-
cans charged Democrats with putting
the tax issue on last evening instead of
m yesterday afternoon to make political
| points on prime television time.

3 The impeachment process will now
» subside for about two weeks while the^
^ Judicially Committee writes a report

detailing the case for members of the
House.

The House debate on the three arti-
cles — charging obstruction of justice in
the Watergate cover-up, misusing fed-
eral agencies to violate citizens’ consti-
tutional rights, and defiance of eight
committee subpoenas — will start in
about two week$. A final vote is ex-
pected about Aug. 24.

The House is expected to impeach
the President by a majority vote and
send the case to trial in the Senate,
which can remove him from office by
a two-thirds vote.

The subpoena article was approved
by a 21-to-17 vote, a margin narrower
than that mustered by a bipartisan
coalition that approved the first two
articles.

The committee had warned Mr. Nix-
on it might impeach him for his re-
fusal to comply with subpoenas for
147 taped presidential conversations.
The President’s only response was to
turn over and publicly release edited
transcripts of less than 40.

, Supporters of the article on im-
peachment dealing with Mr. Nixon’s
refusal to obey committee subpoenas

argued that if presidential defiance
were not made an offense, impeach-
ment would become an empty provi-
sion of the Constitution. They claimed
that future Presidents could refuse to
turn over any information to impeach-
ment inquiries.

Opponents contended that the
charge standing alone did not rise to
the level, of seriousness required of im-
peachable offenses, especially since
the President had claimed what at the
time he could have believed to be a
constitutional right to refuse informa-
tion and the committee had refused to
go to court for a decision. Both sides
drew on last week’s Supreme Court de-
cision in the tapes case, which held
that executive privilege, on which the
President relied, does exist but is not
absolute.

Some on both sides argued that the
defiance charge should more properly
be made one count in the obstruction
of justice or abuse of power articles
previously adopted. An attempt to
shift it into one of those substantive

See IMPEACH, A16, Col. I

roves Article on
Defiance of Subpoenas

IMPEACH, From A1

articles may be made when the House
votes on impeachment next month.

Rep. Tom Railsback (R-Ill.), who had
voted for the first two articles, vigor-
ously opposed the third as “political
overkill.” He warned Democratic sup-
porters they could weaken their case
in the House by trying to push through
an article not solidly based. Railsback
recalled that the committee had re-
fused to seek a full House citation of
contempt against the President or to
go to court to seek enforcement of its
subpoenas.

“Watch what happens to your fragile
bipartisan coalition” of members who
believed there were grounds for the
two previously adopted articles on
Watergate crimes and violation of citi-
zens’ rights, said Railsback. He added,
however, that this did not lessen his
support for the first two articles.

When the vote came, the 28-to-10 ma-
jority — consisting of all 21 Democrats
and seven Republicans — which had
adopted the second article Monday
slipped to 21 to 17 as two Southern
Democrats — Walter Flowers of Ala-
bama and James R. Mann of South
Carolina — voted against, and only two
Republicans — Robert McClory of Illi-
nois and Lawrence J. Hogan of Mary-
land — voted for it. Hogan was the only
Republican member to vote for all
three adopted articles.

McClory sponsored the defiance arti-
cle. He noted that the Constitution
vests “sole” power over impeachment
ip the House, but contended that if the
President has the right to “determine
the extent to which the inquiry is car-
ried on, we don’t have sole power.” He
quoted a rule of law that “a person
cannot be the judge of his own cause.”

Rep. Charles E. Wiggins (R-Calif.)
opposed the amendment, contending
that since the committee had found
enough “clear and convincing” evi-
dence to recommend impeachment in
two articles, it could not now turn
around and recommend impeachment
for failure to provide evidence. “You
canT have your cake and eat it, too,”
said Wiggins.

r Rep. Wayne Owens (Utah) said the
committee “must say to future Presi-
dents that impeachment will be auto-

. matic if the President uses his unique

power to stonewall. He is the only per-
son in the United States who can re-
fuse to honor a congressional sub-
poena because he is the commander in
chief and the head of the executive
branch and we haven’t the physical
ability to overcome his defiance.”

Rep. Harold V. Froehlich (R-Wis.),
who had voted for the first two articles
but opposed the third, called the sub-
poenas issue a “classic confrontation”
between two branches of government,
which should be settled by the courts.

The committee had refused to seek
court enforcement of its subpoenas on
grounds that this would require dele-
gating to the courts some of the im-
peachment power which the Constitu-
tion placed solely in the House.

Rep. Ray Thornton (D-Ark.) offered
an amendment, adopted 24 to 14, de-
signed to make clear that presidential
defiance of a congressional subpoena
would be an impeachable offense only
in an impeachment inquiry, not in re-
sponse to a committee drafting general
legislation.

Rep. Robert W. Kastenmeier (D-Wis.)
responded to Wiggins’ contention that
the committee appeared to have plenty
of evidence by saying that other im-
peachment articles on the milk and In-
ternational Telephone & Telegraph
Corp. matters might have succeeded
had Mr. Nixon turned over suppoenaed
tapes.

Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.) argued
that if the committee failed to approve
the article on presidential defiance,
“we will diminish if not destroy the
only safety valve in the Constitution to
protect ourselves against a President
who so misbehaves that he poses a
threat to the country.” In a parliamen-
tary system, new elections can be
called when the government loses a
vote of confidence, but in the United
States a President serves at least four
years unless impeached.

But Rep. David W. Dennis (R-Ind.)
argued that the committee was in ef-
fect saving to the President: If you
don’t agree with our view of the Con-
stitution we are going to impeach you.
“The President believed he had a con-
stitutional right of executive privilege
to withhold” the material, said Dennis.

Rep. M. Caldwell Butler (R-Va.), who
supported the first two articles, op-
posed the third. “Would this article

standing alone constitute impeachable
conduct?” asked ButLer. “I think not.”

“We don’t need this article,” said
Butler. “It serves no useful purpose.”
He added that it offended his sense of
fair play because the committee had
not exhausted other means, through
the courts or a House contempt cita-
tion, to enforce its subpoenas.

Flowers, who had agonized his way
to supporting the first two articles,
joined Butler for the same reasons.

The committee’s subpoenes had been
approved by wide margins, up to 37 to
1. The only member to vote against all
of them was Rep. Edward Hutchinson
(R-Mich.), the committee’s senior Re-
publican, who felt they were a futile
gesture because they could not be en-
forced.

“Just as the President cannot order
the House to do anything,” said Hutch-
inson yesterday, “so I also think the
House cannot order the President to
do anything.”

But sponsors of the article con-
tended that the President cannot rely
on the seperation of powers doctrine
to justify his non-compliance and that
the impeachment provision is an ex-
ception to this doctrine.

Hutchinson also said he had aban-
doned position taken early in the im-
peachment inquiry when he said that
“the doctrine of executive privilege
must fall” in an impeachment inquiry.
Hutchinson said he had changed his
mind after the Supreme Court last
week recognized that some privilege
does exist.

The proposed article on the Cambo-
dia bombing was doomed from the
start, but its authors insisted on mak-
ing a record that in their view the
President had violated the Constitu-
tion by concealing the B-52 raids from
Congress and the American public.

The impeachment inquiry staff had
published an inch-thick memorandum
on the bombing but had not made any
judgment on Mr. Nixon’s role, some
senior Democrats who voted for im-
peachment on other articles had hoped
to keep it from coming up for debate.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), spon-
sor of the article, said it would serve
notice to other Presidents that Con^
gress has the right to declare war.
“Many people have forgotten who has
the power to declare war in 1974 in the
United States,” he said.

The bombing of Cambodia was or-

dered by President Nixon in early 1969
and was not formally reported to Con-
gress until 1973.

The Conyers article specified that
Mr. Nixon had violated his constitu-
tional oath by concealing the raids, not
by ordering them in the first place,
and by giving Congress false informa-
tion on the nature and scope of the
bombing.

Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.) as-
sertd that the President had not only
concealed the bombing but misled the
public by insisting in public state-
ments that the neutrality of Cambodia
was not being violated.

But opponents insisted that Con-
gress had to share blame for not acting
early to end the bombing. They pro-
vided statements from military leaders
that key officials of both the House
and Senate had been privately in-
formed of the bombing.

Republicans also observed that Pres-
ident Johnson had acted secretly in be-
ginning escalation of the war in Viet-
nam before Mr. Nixon came to office.
“How many articles of impeachment
were filed against President Johnson
for his part?” asked Flowers. “This is a
bad rap on President Nixon.” He ac-
idly told proponents, “You don’t have
any corner on conscience on this mat-
ter and my conscience requires that I
vote against it.”

One Republican, Rep. Harry P.
Smith (N.Y.), had indicated last week
that he might be prepared to vote for
an impeachment article dealing with
Cambodia on grounds that the public
and Congress had been deceived.

But yesterday, Smith voted against
Conyers’ resolution, contending that
“too many aspects are not clear” and

complaining that the committee had
not gone into the issue deeply enough.

The final vote opposing the article
was 26 to 12.

The committee wound up last night
with frequently bitter two-hour debate
in prime television time on an article
that Mr. Nixon should be impeached
because he willfully' attempted to
evade the payment of a portion of his
federal income taxes from 1969 to 1972.

The article also alleged that Mr.
Nixon violated his oath of office by re-
ceiving unconstitutional emoluments,
specifically in the form of improve-
ments to his private estates in Califor-
nia and Florida and travel for his fam-
ily.

The tax charge centered on Mr. Nix^
on’s attempt to claim a $576,000 chari-
table deduction on his 1969 taxes for
donating his vice presidential papers
to the National Archives. It has been
shown that the paper deeding the gift
was signed after the federal law allow-
ing such deductions had expired.

Rep. Edward Mezvinsky (D-Iowa),
who sponsored the article, said the tax
charge was an impeachable mffense
even though it did not involve an offi-
cial act. Mr. Nixon benefited from his
official office ebcause the illegal de-
duction would have left Mr. Nixon
open to a tax-evasion count if he had
been a private citizen.

“He took advantage of the presi-
dency to avoid paying the proper
taxes,” Mezvinsky said. “It’is not just
the Treasury that’s poorer, but the
whole system of self-government.”

The fault cannot be traced solely to
Mr. Nixon’s aides and tax lawyer, Mez-
vinsky said, because there is evidence
that the President paid close attention

to his personal finances. “And remem-
ber, he was on the bottom line,” h»e
added.

But Wiggins contended that Mr. Nix-
on’s role in the transaction was mini-
mal. The final decision, he said, came
in a 85-minute meeting in April, 1972,
when the President was told by his- tax
and personal lawyers that the deduc-
tion was proper. '

“That’s how finely this web of fraud
is spun,” Wiggins said sarcastically;

Railsback agreed and charged that
the committee’s consideration of per-
sonal taxes as an impeachable offense
was a case of “overkill.”

“This is another case where we have
impeachmentitis,” Railsback said.

McClory and other Republicans
claimed there was no evidence of
wrong-doing and some brought up
questions about f ormer Presidents.

After voting to impeach Mr. Nixon
on three other counts, Sandman
charged, the committee was trying last
night “to strip him of every asset he’s
got left. . „ . Boy, what a generous
crowd.”

Sandman observed that one charge
was that Mrs. Nixon had been given a
free ride on Air Force One. “Did any-
body ever question any of those trips
by Jackie Kennedy or Lady Bird?”
Sandman asked. “But everything Rich-
ard does is a crime.”

When Rep. Holtzman questioned the
alleged use of a $5,000 in campaign
contributions for a birthday present of
earrings to Mrs. Nixon, Sandman
raised a question of libel. Miss Holtz-
man said she resented his aspersions
on her integrity and said she was. quot-
ing from a draft report of the Senate .
Watergate committee. > 1

Nation Gets Ra re

By William Greider

Washington Post Staff Writer

Everybody kept calling it
an ordeal, the terrible
drama of impeachment that
the House Judiciary Com-
mittee staged for the nation
via television.

The otherwise peaceful
ulcer of Rep. Walter Flow-
ers of Alabama was offered
in evidence. Rep. William
Hungate of Missouri re-
sorted to sunglasses, his
weary eyes stung by the
glaring television lights.
Rep. William Cohen of
Maine had ear trouble,
which made it difficult to
hear the debate, a welcome
affliction at times. Every
committee member said,
over and again, how an-
guished they were.

But you know, down deep,
Mr. Chairman, they sort of
enjoyed it. For the House
of Representatives, an as-
sembly where personal
glamor is scorned, the im-
peachment hearings pro-
vided an institutional ego
trip. For the American pub-
lic, it was a grand civics
lesson in how things work
at the other end of Pennsyl-
vania Avenue.

Rep. Lawrence J. Hogan,
the Republican from Prince
George’s County, was pep-
pered with bitter remarks
from his conservative
friends last week when he
announced for impeach-
ment. Now, he says, he is
getting cordial notes of con-
gratulation.

“Our colleagues,” said
Hogan, beaming, “are say-
ing that we have enhanced
the prestige of the House.
Everybody’s used to seeing
those buffoons from the
Senate on TV. We’ve shown
that the House operates
with real dignity.”

Rep. M. Caldwell Butler,
a hitherto little-known fresh-
man from southwest Virgin-

ia, stepped through the lob-
by doors off the House floor.
“Here he comes,” an elder
colleague proclaimed, with a
touch of the needle, “star of
stage, screen and television.”

At the end of the ordeal,
the 38 committee members
were exchanging autographs
with each other, collected as
keepsakes for their grand-
children, no doubt. “E Pluri-
bus Unum,” as the banner
on their committee room
wall proclaims. From many,
there was one awesome mo-
ment of history.

For the American audi-
ence, the civics lesson was
just like the ones they teach
in high school, partly genu-
ine and partly hokum. Con-
gress, let it be said, does
not usually do business with

Commentary

such humid rhetoric about
the Founding Fathers. Nor
do the 435 representatives al-
ways stay in their seats so
obediently. The minority, in
usual circumstances, is not
so long winded; the major-
ity usually shuts it up.

Still, if people were watch-
ing, they saw a rare glimpse
of a legislative committee
at work, tedious and care-
ful, proceeding through the
words which, line by line,
section by section, added up
to an impeachment charge
against the President. They
spoke in quaint phrases:

“I thank the gentleman
for his valuable remarks.”
“Reserving the right to ob-
ject, Mr. Chairman, and I
will not object.”

“I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from New York.”
Those antique expressions
of courtesy still lubricate
the legislative process. They
are necessary grace notes in
a game that is supposed to
produce collective judgment
out of bitter differences.

Above all, with rare
lapses, the Judiciary Com-
mittee maintained its civil- *
ity before the cameras.

Indeed, once they were
past that initial trauma of
voting the first article of im-
peachment on Saturday
night, the committee mem-
bers settled comfortably
into the routine of voting a
second and a third one. It
was the normalcy of the
proceedings, despite the
florid rhetoric, that may be
remembered best by history,
the orderly way a collection
of such different folks pro-
ceeded to do the awesome
deed.

Parliamentary gamesman-
ship, a staple in the House
of Representatives, ate up a
lot of time without changing
the outcome in any signifi-
cant way. Even some mem-
bers got dizzy when a Sie-
berling amendment and a
McClory amendment and a
Wiggins amendment were
stacked up on the Hungate
substitute to the Donohue
resolution.

Chairman Peter W. Ro-
dino Jr., who presided with
a magisterial gavel, was a
lot more benign than your
average House committee
chairman. He hardly said a
word for himself, beyond
the opening pieties. He al-
lowed members of both par-
ties to dispute on how they
should proceed and ac-
cepted their collective deci-
sions in good humor.

“There is one hour and 20
minutes remaining,” Con-
gressman Flowers asserted
at one crossroads. “That is
80 minutes, is it not? That
would be 40 minutes to a
side. I realize this is the Ju-
diciary Committee, and we
don’t deal with these num-
bers very often.”

Such small jbkes are com-
mon in congressional dis-
course. Congressman Hun-

gate, who represents Mark
r Twain’s old home district in
Missouri, offered comic re-
lief of a higher order.

“As I hear the argument,”
Hungate told his fellow law-
yers, “I think I know now
why there are not lawsuits
in heaven. The other side
has all the good lawyers.”

Those personal glimpses
were educational, too. Li be-
tween the dramatic mo-
ments, different characters
performed on screen, people
who lacked the majesty of a
presidential entrance or
even the glitter of a hand-
some senator.

Hutchinson, the ranking
blank on the Republican
side. Barbara Jordan, a
beefy woman with a voice
made for Shakespeare. Hung-
gate’s cracker barrel. Con-
yers’ Mr. Cool. Railback’s
nasal earnestness. Charlie
the Sandman, tossing grit in
everybody’s eyes, Harold
Donohue, whose . lullaby
could put anyone to sleep.

James Mann, the slow-
draw marksman from South
Carolina. Drinan, the bale-
ful priest, not the hot-eyed
radical people thought.
Trent Lott, the Jaycee from
Dixie. Dennis and Wiggins
and Mayne, granite faces
and razor arguments. Joe
“a good ole boy.” Elizabeth
Holtzman, cold steel from
Maraziti, Jersey’s version of
Brooklyn.

What can you make of
them? They were an expres-
sive collection of American
voices, homely and hand-
some, comic and vain and
tedious, serious and agon-
ized and occasionally elo-
quent. Yet collectively they
are powerful politicians,
powerful enough to topple a
President, anyway. It really
is E Pluribus Unum— the
branch of government that
operates without ruffles and
flourishes. <

Reception Planned Sept. 27 '

To Honor Rep. Butler

A North Carolina con-
gressman, formerly a major
league baseball pitcher, will be
in Lynchburg next month for a
reception honoring Sixth Dis-
trict Rep. M. Caldwell Butler.

Rep. Wilmer (Viriegar Bend)
Mizell, R-N.C., will be a guest
at the reception scheduled for
6 p.m. Friday, Sept. 27, at a
location to be announced at a
later date.

The announcement was
made Sunday by Carroll P.
Freeman, Lynchburg Re-
publican City Committee
chairman.

House Minority Leader John
Rhodes, R-Ariz., will be the
honored guest at another re-
ception scheduled for Butler
on Sept. 4, at Staunton’s In-
gleside Inn.

The Sixth District Re-
publican Committee met
Saturday at Lexington to plan

the reelection campaign for
Butler. Butler was not at the
meeting.

District GOP Chairman Wil-
liam B. Poff of Roanoke ad-
mitted that some friction may
have been created when But-
ler, as a member of the House
Judiciary Committee, voted for
the first two articles of im-
peachment against former
President Nixon. However, par-
ty leadership showed no signs
of apprehension as it pro-
ceeded to plan campaign de-
tails.

According to Ray Hum-
phrey, a Washington political
consultant retained by Butler,
in the 1,457 precincts in the
sixth district, there is an aver-
age of 523 adults not registered
to vote.

Schools to train GOP work-
ers to get new voters registered
and- to the polls on election day

have been scheduled in Staun-
ton on Sept. 13, in Lynchburg
on Sept. , and in Roanoke on
Sept. 15.

Freeman also said that the
next meeting of the Lynchburg
Republican City Committee
will be open to the public.

The meeting will be held at
7:30 p.m. today at Fairview
Christian Church chapel, in-
stead of the usual meeting
place at Virginia Baptist Hospi-
tal auditorium.

According to Freeman, it is
the feeling of the committee
that meetings should be held
at various locations through-
out the city.

Meanwhile, Freeman earlier
said that he feels the GOP
needs to “broaden its base”
and that he is encouraged with
the nomination of former New
York Gov. Nelson A. Rock-
efeller for vice president.

“I feel it is the President’s
prerogative to pick a vice presi-
dent,” Freemen commented,
“and if President Ford is satis-
fied Mr. Rockefeller meets his
requirements, then I endorse
the nominee.”

Freeman says he does not
know to what extent national
events concerning impeach-
ment, the resignation of Nixon
and Rockefeller’s nomination
will be discussed at tonight’s
meeting.

“But I am sure of one
thing,” Freeman remarked,
“never in the history of the
City GOP Committee has as
much of national importance
transpired between meetings
of the committee.”

, Lynchburg, Va., Mon., Aug. 26, 1974

i* i

.arolma lavv.iiem

to be guest at reception

- ; : A North Carolina con-
gressman, who is a former ma-
jor league baseball player, will
be a guest at a reception hon-
oring Sixth District Rep. M.
Caldwell Butler next month in
Lynchburg.

Rep. Wilmer (Vinegar Bend)
Mizell, R-N. C., will attend the
reception scheduled for 6 p. m.
Sept. 27 at a location to be
announced at a later date.

Carroll P. Freeman, chair-
man of the Lynchburg Re-
publican City Committee,
made the announcement Sun-
day.

House Minority Leader John
Rhodes, R-Ariz., will be a spe-
cial guest at another reception
for Butler on Sept. 4 at the
Ingleside Inn in Staunton.

The Sixth District Re-
publican Committee met
Saturday in Lexington to plan

the re-election campaign for
Butler. Butler wa$ not at -the
meeting.

District GOP Chairman Wil-
liam B. Poff of Roanoke ad-
mitted that some friction may
have been created when But-
ler, as a member of the House
Judiciary Committee, voted for
the first two articles of im-
peachment against former
President Nixon. However, par-
ty leadership showed no signs
of apprehension as it pro-
ceeded to plan campaign de-
tails.

According to Ray Hum-
phrey, a Washington political
consultant retained by Butler,
in the 1,457 precincts in the
sixth district, there is an aver-
age of 523 adults not registered
to vote.

Schools to trrin GOP work-
ers to get new vtters registered

and to the polls on election day
have been scheduled in Staun-
ton on Sept. 13, in Lynchburg
on Sept., and in Roanoke on
Sept. 15.

Freeman also said that the
next meeting of the Lynchburg
Republican City Committee
will be open to the public.

The meeting will be held at
7:30 p.m. today at Fairview
Christian Church chapel, in-
stead of the usual meeting
place at Virginia Baptist Hospi-
tal auditorium.

According to Freeman, it is
the feeling of the committee
that meetings should be held
at various locations through-
out the city.

THt

P

Butler Offers Position

> ?/37/7 i i-

On Political Contributions

>

I

Sixth District incumbent
Rep. M. Caldwell Butler has
announced that he will not “as
a candidate, accept contribu-
tions from other than individ-
uals.”

In a position paper released
Monday night before a meet-
ing of the Lynchburg Re-
publican City Committee, But-
ler hit out at organized labor
saying “I am satisfied that the
strength of the labor move-
ment in the Congress arises
from the tremendous amount

of money they have available
to guide the destinities of those
Congressmen they consider
worthy of their support.”

Butler, who is seeking reel-
ection for a second term, is
being opposed by Democratic
hopeful Paul Puckette,
Roanoke city sheriff, recently
endorsed by the AFL-CIO.

“I have on more than one
occasion seen the course of leg-
islation altered or even re-
versed as a direct result of
intervention by the represent-

atives of organized labor,” said
Butler.

The Sixth District represent-
ative blamed the labor forces
for the failure of his campaign
reform legislation to reach the
floor of the House of Repre-
sentatives.

Butler, who admitted that
he had in the past accepted ;
combined centnb'ttions from
various groups said such
pooled contrif' ions which
form the bash f special in-
See BtP p B-3

Butler

Continued from B-l \
terest group funds are “one of
the greatest evils in American
politics.”

Meanwhile, Lynchburg GOP
Chairman Carroll P. Freeman
made a plea for party unity
calling on copimittee members
to “put the events of recent
days in their proper context
and to assist those who were
disenchanted with Butler’s
stand (on impeachment and
resignation) to see that nothing
is gained from staying away
from the polls.”

“The strength of our opposi-
tion,” he continued, “is in-
creased by our division.”
Freeman commented that
many important decisions still
lay ahead saying “we need a
man of the intellectual and
moral character of Butler.”

It was announced at
Monday’s meeting that the
City Republican Committee
would rent the former ABC
store building in the 600 block
of Main Street for its head-
quarters in the upcoming cam-
paign.

—By JAYNE GRIFFIN

Rep. John Rhodes, Minority invitations have^ been mailed
.eader of the U.S. House of out to the $20 per couple gala.
Representatives, will be in Tickets are available by mail
Staunton on September 4 for a from the Rhodes Reception
fund raising reception honoring Committee, 1060 Lyndhurst
Sixth District Congressman M. Rd., Waynesboro, 22980, and
Caldwell Butler. Congressman also will be available at the

Butler is seeking his second door.

term in Congress.

Rhodes, from Arizona, took
over the helm of the Republican
Party in the House from Presi-
dent Gerald Ford when he was
named Vice President in De-
cember, 1973. Rhodes previous-
ly was chairman of the House
Republican Policy Committee
for more than five years. Elect-
ed to Congress in 1952, he is
serving his 11th consecutive
term which is longer than any-
one in Arizona history.

The two Congressmen will
greet guests in the Victoria
Ballroom of the Ingleside Hotel
near Staunton beginning at
6:30 P.M. More than 1,000

Rep. John Rhodes, minority
leader of the U. S. House of
Representatives, will be in
Staunton Sept. 4 for a fund
raising reception in support of

Republican, took over the helm
of the Republican Party in the
House from Pre sident Ford

The two Congressmen will
greet guests in the Victoria
Ballroom of the Ingleside Hotel
near Staunton beginning at 6:30
p.m. More than 1,000 invitations
have been mailed out. This is a
fund raising affair and the fee is
$20 per couple. Congressman
Butler is a candidate for
reelection for a second term.

Tickets are available by mail!
from the Rhodes Reception j
Committee, 1060 Lyndhurst Rd.,
Waynesboro, Va., 22980, and also
will be available at the door.

L

GOP Leader Com...,,
To Support Butler 1

& uiuing 4vvvj^v*vii *** ^

Congressman M. Caldwell

Butler of the Sixth Virginia
District.

Congressman Rhodes, Arizona

Caldwell Butler.

Rhodes, from Arizona,
took over the helm of the
Republican Party in the
House from President
Gerald Ford when he was
named Vice President in
December, 1973. Rhodes
previously was chairman of
the House Republican Policy
Committee for more than
five years. Elected to
Congress in 1952, he is ser-
ving his 11th consecutive
term which is longer than
anyone in Arizona history.

The two Congressmen will
greet guests in the Victorial
Ballroom of the Ingleside
Hotel near Staunton
beginning ag 6:30 p.m. More
than 1,000 invitations have
been mailed out to the $20

Buena Vista News, Thursday, August 29, 1974 Page 7

Gathright
cost study
in works

It will probably be the end of
the year before a study of the
feasibility and rising costs of
the Gathright Dam on the
Jackson River above Coving-
ton will be completed, a
spokesman in Washington said
today.

Hunter Spillan, clerk of a
House subcommittee on Pub-
lic Works said the investiga- 4
tion has been turned over to a
team that is conducting simi-
lar studies on other projects.

Rep. Joe Evins, D-Tenn.,

tional caverns were found in
an abutment of the dam and
there were indications that the
cost might rise to $50 million.

At least two congressmen,
Rep. John Slack, D-W. Va.,
and Rep. Caldwell Butler, R-
Va., visited the dam site.

Rep. Slack, who is a member
of the subcommittee.

Spillan said the study will be
a “routine” fact-finding
checkup of the type conducted
at other projects that are in
dispute.

Meanwhile, the Army Corps
of Engineers is continuing con-
struction of the dam and rer
c e i v e d a $ 6 million
appropriation for the current
fiscal year.

Butler Dinner Scheduled

available at the door.

Ross Hersey of
Waynesboro is general
chairman for the reception
and William E. Bobbitt of
Stuarts Draft is treausrer.
They are being assisted by
Judith Green and Sarah Nutt

of Staunton, Margaret Lintz
of Waynesboro, Ella Millhoff
of Stuarts Draft and Pete
Whitlock of Rockbridge
County.

ii . o , Reception Committee, 1060

mil be m Staunton on Sep- Lyndhurst M Waynesboro,
tember 4 for a fund raising it! nonon „i_ „.:n

House of Representatives, Reception Committee, 1060

Tin 1 1 Ha m CrminTAn An Vnn

seeking his second term in
Congress.

Congressman Butler is

tember 4 for a fund raising y a ^ 22980 and also will be

District Congressman M.

asked for the study after addi-

Evins called for the study
after getting a report from

Fund-raising
effort planned

The minority leader of the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Minority Leader
of the Virginia House of Delegates will be
working together for a Republican fun-
raising reception in Staunton on Wed-
nesday.

Del. A.R. Giesen Jr., of Verona, has
been named an honorary chairman of the
event which will have as an honored guest
Rep. John Rhodes, R-Ariz., a 22-year
veteran in Congress. The gathering at
Ingleside will Wnofitrn5tti iTrstritTr-
congressman M. Caldwell Butler and will
be Mr. Butler’s first public appearance in
his home district since the conclusion of
the recent House Judiciary Committee
proceedings in which he was a participant.

Rep. Rhodes, the first Republican ever
elected to Congress from Arizona, will hold
a news conference at the Ingieside'at 5:30
p.m. preceding the 6:30 reception. He will
be introduced by Rep. Butler who is
seeking his second term in Congress.

> Republican unit chairmen from Augusta
County, Staunton and Waynesboro will
serve as an honor escort for Reps. Rhodes
and Butler into the news conference. They
are Mrs. Warren Kindt, Douglas C. Wine
and Howard Wilhelm.

Del. J. Marshall Coleman, member of
the House of Delegates from Staunton,
also will be an honorary chairman. Ross
Hersey of Waynesboro is general chair-
man for the receptioi and William E.
Bobbitt of Stuarts Draft is treasurer

£

a

V

Butler Explains Facts In Letter

Sixth District Representative
M. Caldwell Butler announced
ttoday that he will shortly be
mailing a newsletter to all Sixth
District residents regarding
recent events in Washington.

Butler called for the American
people to lend their loyalty and
cooperation to President Gerald
R. Ford, and favorably
evaluated Ford's ability to
reduce inflation. Butler also
commented on the nomination of
Nelson A. Rockefeller to be Vice
President and on the resignation
of Richard M. Nixon.

Butler, who served on the
Judiciary Committee which
investigated Ford when he was a
Vice Presidential nominee,
expressed the “greatest con-
fidence" in Ford.

“Gerald Ford took office under
the most difficult of cir-
cumstances, with a nation
divided with controversy and
wracked with inflation,"
Butler said. “He deserves the
loyalty and understanding, and I
for one pledge him that."

“The Congress must accept
Gerald Ford’s offer to meet
more than halfway if we are to
solve the problems of our
nation, including that of in-
flation," he continued.

Vutler said he is convinced
that excessive government
spending is the greatest factor
contributing to inflation, and
expressed confidence in Ford’s
ability to send the Congress a
balanced budget for the next
fiscal year.

“As a veteran of long service
in the House Appropriations
Committee, President Ford is
thoroughly familiar with the
budgeting process, and the
prospects for meaningful
reductions in federal spending
were never brighter,’’ he
commented.

Looking forward to the con-
firmation hearings for Vice
President nominee Nelson
Rockefeller, Butler said, “It is
my own view that the President
is entitled to select his own Vice

President and that the Congress
should confirm the nominee
unless its own investigation
reveals matter reflecting upon
his ability to discharge the office
of Vice President or President . .

The Congress cannot require
the President to niminate a Vice
President whose views are
consistent with a majority of the
Congress or a particular
congressman . . .’’

Butler also said that
Rockefeller, as a national figure
with extensive government
experience “can bring new
prestige to the office of Vice
President."

Butler noted that he had
originally intended to prepare a
detailed statement explaining
his reasons for supporting two
articles of impeachment.
However, in light of subsequent
revelations since that vote and
the resignation of Richard
Nixon, he now prefers to let the
Judiciary Committee report on
impeachment speak for him.

That report will be available in
libraries throughout the district.

Butler said it was to Nixon’s
“great credit that he chose to
spare the country a prolonged
Senate trial and departed with
dignity and in good grace."

The Congress should turn its
attention to more pressing
matters now, Butler said.

In addition to these comments
on national political events*
Butler announced that his office
in finalizing arrangements for
Senior Citizens Conferences
throughout the District during
mid-September.

mi ■ *

/ ^ f

Farm Bureau Speaker

Butler Says Court
Too Light On Agnew

Sixth District Congressman
M. Caldwell Butler criticized
the sentence recently given to
former vice president Spiro
Agnew as being too lenient
when he addressed the Rock-
bridge County Farm Bureau
Saturday.

At its annual membership
meeting held at Lexington
High School the bureau
elected officers and adopted
resolutions on the nation j,
state and local levels.

Butler told the crowd f f 75
that his judgment had been
“premature’ ’ in thinking that
Agnew had resigned only for
the good of the country.

The congressman said the
resignation was part of a deal
to secure freedom from a jail
sentence. Agnew received a
suspended sentence after
pleading no contest to a
charge of tax evasion.

Butler is a member of the
House Judiciary Committee
which will conduct hearings
on Gerald Ford’s nomination
as successor to Agnew.

“Agnew has created a
credibility gap that
politicians, especially con-
servative politicians, will be
a long time overcoming,”
Butler said. Since the in-
cident occurred under a
Republican administration,
Butler said the Republicans
have a “heavy respon-
sibility” to “clean it up.”
Butler said, “I think it was
important for the country
that he resign and do it
quickly.” He added, “I
neither condone nor excuse
any of the revelations
relative to either” Agnew or
Watergate.

River and its tributaries as a
scenic river. The bureau
favored payment from the
damage stamp fund to

Butler also spoke about tne
fuel shortage and the im-
pending shortage in nitrogen
and phosphate fertilizers.

John Watts was re-elected
president of the bureau and
Walter Pultz vice president.

Elected to two-year terms
as directors were Joe B.
Reid, Harlan Shepherd,
Charles A. Potter Jr., Delber t
Moore and Alec Lipscomb
Mrs. Earl Watts was elected
director-at-large for a two-
year term.

Mr. and Mrs. John Watts
and Mrs. Louise Tardy were
elected voting delegates to
the state farm bureau con-
vention which will be held
Nov. 27-29 in Richmond. Pultz
will be alternate delegate.

The bureau supported the
resolution on the national
level that the income
exemption for retired persons
receiving social security
benefits be raised to $3,000.

On the state level, the
bureau went on record as
supporting toll-free telephone
service within each county,
emergency efforts to control
the gypsy moth, legislation
requiring public utilities to
pay an annual rent for
easement land equal to the
county tax on that land and
legislation to permit the
election of school board
members. The bureau op-
posed the mandatory use of
seat belts.

Locally the bureau opposed
the designation of the Maury

property owners in all cases
where farm property is
damaged or destroyed by ]

game animals or hunters.

'•-•-■•-•-•-W.*.-,

'■ ,
■••vw. * 1

Special To Roanoke Times driving down from Washing- the Virginia House of Dele-
STAUNTON— House Minori- ton, will hold a 5:30 p.m. press gates, is honorary chairma

ty Leader John J. Rhodes of conference and . then attend a for the reception.

Arizona will be in Staunton to- fund-raising reception— the The reception publicity hails

morrow evening to help in the tickets are $20 a couple— for it as “two minority leaders

re-election campaign of 6th Butler at 6:30. Both events are working together . . . ”

District Rep. M. Caldwell But- atlngleside. “His appearance in the 6th

ler. Del. A. R. “Pete” Giesen Jr. District clearly bespeaks the

The congressman, who is of Staunton, minority leader of stature of Butler and the re-

chairman for the reception. i n g resignation of former

President Nixon. Ford, then vice president,

The reception will be the was in Roanoke on July 19 for

first Republican campaign Rhodes, a member of the a $100 a couple fund raising
function in the district since House since 1952, became its reception for Butler.

gard with which he is held in

Cnnorocc ” Ciacon

Congress,” Giesen declared.

Del. J. Marshall Coleman of
Staunton also is an honorary

Butler, as a member of the minority leader when Pres
House Judiciary Committee, dent Ford was picked to su
voted for the first two articles cee( ? Spiro Agnew as vice
of impeachment and the ensu- president in 1973.

Rhodes And Geisen Ate
Featured At GOP Event

The Minority Leader of the US House of Represen-
tatives and the Minority Leader of the Virginia
House of Delegates will be working together for a
Republican fund-raising reception in Staunton on
September 4 (tonight).

Del. A. R. “Pete” Giesen, Jr., of Verona, has
been named an honorary chairman of the event
which will have as an honored guest Rep. John
Rhodes, R- Arizona, a 22-year veteran in Congress.
The gathering at the Ingleside Inn will benefit Sixth
District Congressman M. Caldwell Butler and will be
Butler’ s first public appearance in his home district
since the conclusion of the recent House Judiciary
Committee proceedings in which he was a participant.

Giesen said *It’s very nice to have the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives in the home
district of the Virginia, House Minority Floor Leader.
His performance has been admirable since he stepped
into the shoes of his illustrious predecessor — Gerald
Ford.

"His appearance in the Sixth District clearly
bespeaks the stature of Congressman Butler and
the regard with which he is held in Congress.”

Rhodes, the first Republican ever elected to
Congress from Arizona, will hold a news conference
at the Ingleside Inn at 5:30 p.m. preceding the 6:30
reception. He will be introduced by Congressman
Butler who is seeking his second term in Congress.

Republican unit chairmen from Augusta County,
Staunton and Waynesboro will serve as honor escort
for Representatives Rhodes and Butler into the news
conference. They are Mrs. Warren Kindt, Douglas
C. Wine and Howard Wilhelm.

Delegate J. Marshall Coleman, member of the
House of Delegates from Stauton, also will be an
honorary chairman. Ross Hersey of Waynesboro
is general chairman for the reception and William
E. Bobbitt of Stuarts Draft is treasurer.

announc

V rei^ se

Sixth District Representative M.
Caldwell Butler announced today
that he will shortly be mailing a
newsletter to all Sixth District
residents regarding recent events in
Washington.

Butler called for the American
people to lend their loyalty and
cooperation to Pres. Gerald R.
Ford, and favorably evaluated
Ford’s ability to reduce inflation.
Butler also commented on the
nomination of Nelson A Rockefeller
to be vice president and on the
resignation of Richard M. Nixon.

Butler, who served on the
Judiciary Committee which
investigated Ford when he was a
Vice Presidential nominee,
expressed the “greatest
confidence” in Ford.

“Gerald Ford took office under
the most difficult of cercumstances,
with a nation divided with
controversy and wracked with
inflation,” Butler said. “He
deserves the loyalty and
understanding of every American,
and I for one pledge him that.”

“The Congress must accept
Gerald Ford’s offer to meet more
than halfway if we are to solve the
problems of our nation, including
that of inflation,” he continued.

Butler said he is convinced that
excessive government spending is
the greatest factor contributing to
inflation, and expressed confidence
in Ford’s ability to send the
Congress a balanced budget for the

of newsi

J

next fiscal year. r

“As a veteran of long service in%
the House Appropriations \
Committee, President Ford is
thoroughly familiar with the
budgeting process, and the
prospects for meaningful reductions
in federal spending were never
brighter”, he commented.

Looking forward to the
confirmation hearings for Vice
President nominee Nelson
Rockefeller, Butler said, “It is my
own view that the President is
entitled to select his own vice
president and that the Congress
should confirm the nominee unless
its own investigation reveals
matters reflecting upon his ability
to discharge the office of Vice
President or President, the
Congress cannot require the
president to nominate a vice
president whose views are
consistent with a majority of the
Congress or a particular
congressman.”

Butler also said that Rockefeller,
as a national figure with extensive
government experience “can bring
new prestige to the office of vice
president.”

Butler noted that he had
originally intended to prepare a
detailed statement explaining his
reasons for supporting two articles
of impeachment. However, in light
of subsequent revelations since that
vote and the resignation of Richard
Nixon, he now prefers to let the
judiciary committee report on
impeachment speak for him. That
report will be available in libraries
throughout the district.

Butler said it was to Nixon’s
“great credit that he chose to spare
the country a prolonged Senate trial
and departed with dignity and in
g<Tod grace.” >

The Congress should turn its
attention to more pressing matters
now, Butler said.

In addition to these comments on
national political events, Butler \
announced that his office is
finalizing arrangements for Seniom
Citizens. Conferences throughout thm
district during mid-September. M